Ex Parte Runyan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 16, 201713410049 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/410,049 03/01/2012 Max R. Runyan 11-023 l-US-NP 1586 122219 7590 10/18/2017 Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company One North Franklin, Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER MCCAFFREY, KAYLA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): bmatthias @ millermatthiashull. com patentadmin @ boeing. com ynunez@millermatthiashull.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAX R. RUNYAN, DANIEL G. SANDERS, LARRY D. HEFTI, DAVID R. PAPENFUSS, JACK W. MAULDIN, and LUIS R. LEON Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,0491 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, DANIEL S. SONG, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, “The Boeing Company” is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an SPF/DB, that is, superplastic forming/diffusion bonding, structure for attenuation of noise from air flow. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A propulsion system comprising: a turbine jet engine; and an engine nacelle including an SPF/DB inner wall having a hot side face sheet against the engine’s core and a cold side face sheet that has noise attenuation openings. Appeal Br. 16. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Adamson US 3,542,152 Nov. 24, 1970 Herman US 4,137,992 Feb. 6, 1979 Harp US 4,265,955 May 5, 1981 Patterson US 4,495,237 Jan. 22, 1985 Parente US 4,850,093 July 25, 1989 Runyan US 2006/0255098 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 Scarr US 2012/0308379 A1 Dec. 6, 2012 REJECTIONS (I) Claims 1,2, 5—7, 13—15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Adamson. (II) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson and Parente. (III) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson and Scarr. 2 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 (IV) Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson and Harp. (V) Claims 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson and Patterson.2 (VI) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson and Herman. (VII) Claims 1,2, 5—8, 13—15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson and Runyan. (VIII) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson, Runyan, and Parente. (IX) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson, Runyan, and Scarr. (X) Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson, Runyan, and Harp. (XI) Claims 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson, Runyan, and Patterson. (XII) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adamson, Runyan, and Herman. 2 The heading for Rejection (V) does not list Harp as a reference. Final Act. 10. However, claims 11 and 12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 9, which, in Rejection (IV), was rejected as unpatentable over Adamson and Harp. Id. As the heading for Rejection (V) indicates that claims 11, 12, and 18 are unpatentable over Adamson “as applied to claims 9 and 15 above” {id.), we understand the rejection of claims 11 and 12 to implement the teachings provided by Harp as used in the rejection of claim 9, Rejection (IV). The same typographical error occurs in Rejection (XI). See id. at 15- lb. 3 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 OPINION Rejection (I); Adamson The Examiner does not give patentable weight to the requirement in claim 1 that the wall be an “SPF/DB inner wall.” Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner determines that this requirement is a product-by-process limitation and carries no patentable weight in system claim 1. Id. (citing MPEP § 2113). Appellants contend that the requirement that the wall recited in claim 1 be an “SPF/DB” wall is a structural requirement and the Examiner errs in giving it no patentable weight. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants have the better position on this point. Although the Examiner is correct in that some product-by-process limitations are not to be given patentable weight in system, device, and product claims (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), in some cases, the structure of a recited element may be defined by the process in which it is made {In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1979) (“[I]t seem[s] to us that the recitation of the particles as ‘interbonded one to another by interfusion between the surfaces of the perlite particles’ is as capable of being construed as a structural limitation as ‘intermixed,’ ‘ground in place,’ ‘press fitted,’ ‘etched,’ and ‘welded,’ all of which at one time or another have been separately held capable of construction as structural, rather than process, limitations.” (Footnote omitted)). The “DB” product-by-process limitation in claim 1 means “diffusion bonding.” Spec. 124. We find the process of diffusion bonding to define structure, similar to the way the processes of welding and interbonding by interfusion discussed in Garnero define structure. Therefore, the diffusion bonding product-by-process limitation 4 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 recited in claim 1 carries patentable weight. The Examiner does not find that Adamson discloses any structure formed by diffusion bonding. See, e.g., Final Act. 6, 12. Rather, the Examiner’s incorrect determination that this term does not carry patentable weight in claim 1 led to the finding that Adamson discloses all the features recited in claim 1. Id. at 6. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 and 5—7 depending therefrom as anticipated by Adamson. Independent claims 13 and 15 recite, respectively, “an SPF/DB sandwich structure” and “A monolithic SPF/DB sandwich structure.” Appeal Br. 17—18 (Claims App.). For the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, we reverse the rejection of claims 13 and 15 and associated dependent claims 14 and 19 as anticipated by Adamson. Rejections (II)—(VI); Adamson, Parente, Scarr, Harp, Patterson, and Herman The Examiner does not rely on Parente, Scarr, Harp, Patterson, or Herman in any way that would remedy the deficiency discussed above in Rejection (I). See Final Act. 8—11. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above regarding Rejection (I), we reverse Rejections (II)—(VI). Rejection (VII); Adamson and Runyan Claims 1, 2, and 5—83 As an alternative to Rejection (I), the Examiner finds that Adamson teaches most of the elements recited in claim 1, but “does not explicitly teach the inner wall is formed from a superplastic forming/diffusion bonding process (SPF/DB),” and the Examiner addresses this deficiency with the 3 Appellants indicate that claims 2 and 5—8 stand or fall with claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. 5 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 teachings of Runyan. Final Act. 11—12 (citing Runyan 111). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to “to form the inner wall structure of ADAMSON by an SPF/DB process, since it is a known process for forming high stiffness-low weight acoustic panels for aircraft applications.” Id. at 12 (citing Adamson 1:22—32). Appellants do not dispute that Runyan teaches an SPF/DB process, but Appellants argue that Runyan is silent with regard to dealing with extreme temperatures and using an SPF/DB panel in an engine nacelle. Appeal Br. 9. In response, the Examiner finds that Adamson discloses a sandwich panel structure that comprises metal. Ans. 8 (citing Adamson 3:64—67, Figs. 2—3). The Examiner finds that Runyan also discloses a sandwich panel comprising metal (aluminum), as well as an SPF/DB process for making the panel. Ans. 8 (citing Runyan 112, Figs. 1—11). The Examiner further finds that Runyan’s SPF/DB can be used for forming high stiffness, low weight acoustic panels for aircraft. Ans. 8 (citing Runyan | 5). The Examiner explains that Rejection (VII) relies on Runyan for the process of making a panel, not for the Runyan’s panel itself. Ans. 7. In reply, Appellants reiterate that Runyan does not discuss using its SPF/DB process in areas exposed to extreme temperatures. Reply Br. 6—7. In this regard, Appellants quote a portion of the Specification, which states, “the propulsion system further includes a nacelle 140, which includes cowling for covering the ducted fan and the engine core 122. The cowling may be made of a light weight construction using lower temperature capable materials such as carbon epoxy or aluminum” and contend their 6 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 Specification discloses using an SPF/DB structure with a material more temperature resistant than aluminum. Reply Br. 5—6 (quoting Spec. 117). Appellants’ arguments on this point are unavailing. We agree with the Examiner that the rejection of claim 1 based on Adamson and Runyan relies on the process disclosed in Runyan and modifies the panel disclosed by Adamson such that it is formed by this process. Thus, there is no issue as to whether the material of the panel in Adamson is compatible with the temperatures to which it is exposed because the Examiner’s rejection does not propose changes in the material of the panel. As for whether the material from which Adamson’s panel 12, including facing sheet 24 and backer sheet 26 is made is compatible with Runyan’s SPF/DB process, Adamson teaches that these “may be formed using any suitable material such as metals, plastics, ceramics, etc. which are essentially rigid and have adequate mechanical properties.” Adamson 3:64—67. Thus, Adamson teaches that a wide variety of materials are acceptable for its panels. As the Examiner noted, Runyan applies its process to aluminum. See Runyan 112; see also id. 146 (“Materials that can be friction stir welded and formed according to the present invention include, but are not limited to, aluminum, aluminum alloys, nickel alloys, and stainless steel.”). In view of Adamson’s disclosure of using “metals” and “plastics” for its facing sheet 24 and backing sheet 26, Appellants provide no persuasive reason to conclude that the process taught by Runyan would be incompatible with the materials used by Adamson in panel 12. Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Adamson and Runyan would not satisfy all the requirements of claim 1 because backing sheet 26 of the panel is not against the engine’s core as 7 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 required. Appeal Br. 9—10. In support of this argument Appellants provide an annotated copy of a portion of Figure 1 of Adamson and assert that backing sheet 26 is “against” structure that may be a blanket, but in any event is not the “core” of the engine. Id. at 6.4 We reproduce Appellants’ annotated figure below. engine core Appellants’ annotated portion of Figure 1 of Adamson identifies facing sheet 24, backing sheet 26, and structure adjacent air passage 22 that Appellants assert may be an insulation blanket. See Appeal Br. 6. In response, the Examiner states “the structure between the backing sheet (26) and the core flow duct (22) is an engine core nacelle,” and “[t]he nacelle (18) is considered the engine core nacelle because it houses the 4 This portion of the Appeal Brief addresses the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Adamson, but also relates to the finding of fact Appellants contest in the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Adamson and Runyan. Specifically, this portion of the Appeal Brief relates to the specific location of backing sheet 26 and whether the structure in which it is in contact qualifies as an engine core as recited in claim 1. 8 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 compressor, combustor and turbomachinery of the turbojet engine.” Ans. 7 (citing Adamson 2:1—8). Appellants reply that Adamson does not identify what it considers to be the core and that the structure against which backing sheet 26 is disposed may not be nacelle 18. Reply Br. 3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “engine core” is unreasonably broad, and “the inner wall 132 and the engine core 122, as illustrated in FIG. 1, provide a definition for the ‘engine core,’ along with arrows showing the direction of the core flow,” and “the description and illustrations, when viewed with the claims that would require it to be interpreted as, solely, the core flow.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. 126, Figs. 1, 3). Paragraph 26 of the Specification identifies the “engine core” with reference number 122. As is evident from Figure 1, inner wall 132 abuts the engine core 122, and plug nozzle 124 is in contact with the core flow. See also Spec. H 16, 26. The Specification explains that inner wall 132 separates the bypass flow from the engine core and “[t]he inner wall 132 may also function as a core duct for the core flow and as a cowling for the engine core 122.” Spec. 118. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ asserted claim interpretation, the Specification implies that the terms “engine core” and “core flow” are not synonymous. The Specification also states, “[a] typical turbofan engine 120 includes a ducted fan 121 and an engine core (or gas generator) 122 for driving the fan 121.” Spec. 116. Paragraph 21 of the Specification states that “the inner wall 132 suppresses engine noise, which is generated by turbine components of the engine core 122.” Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants’ contention that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the 9 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 “engine’s core” recited in claim 1 corresponds “solely” to the core flow. Rather, Appellants’ engine’s core is disclosed as including turbine components and as driving ducted fan 121. Similarly, Adamson discloses that “the nacelle structure 18 houses a suitable compressor, combustor, and turbomachinery (not shown) for driving a fan 20 disposed within the cowling 16.” Adamson 2:1—4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (see Ans. 2—3) that nacelle structure 18 of Adamson would properly be regarded as being a component of the engine core recited in claim 1. As for Appellants’ contention that Adamson does not identify the structure adjacent to backing sheet 26 as nacelle 18 (Reply Br. 8), we disagree. Specifically, it is evident from Figure 1 of Adamson that nacelle 18 is the structure that defines duct 22, and which is in contact with the structure abutted by backing face 26. This finding of fact is supported by Adamson’s statement that Figure 1 depicts a turbojet engine “having an annular generally streamline fan duct air passage 14 formed by an annular cowling 16 of generally streamline cross section and a suitable nacelle structure 18 projecting within the cowling 16.” Adamson 1:70-75. Passage 14, beginning in the front of the turbojet engine, is formed by annular cowling 16 and nacelle 18. Thus, Appellants’ contention (Reply Br. 3) that Adamson’s nacelle 18 is identified only at the aft portion of turbojet engine 10 is unavailing. Appellants next argue: The [Ejxaminer also errs for failing to consider secondary evidence of nonobviousness. The present application provides numerous advantages of the claimed inner wall (see paragraphs 2 and 30-34 of the application), and it also describes the longstanding and ongoing need to reduce aircraft weight (paragraph 2). The applicants have cited patents showing that 10 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 superplastic forming and diffusion bonding has been known for decades. Given its advantages, had the claimed inner wall been so obvious, someone would have proposed it long ago. Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). In response, the Examiner determines that the facts described in the Specification do not outweigh the prima facie case of obviousness established in view of Adamson and Runyan. Ans. 9. The Specification describes various disadvantages to using an insulation blanket in a jet engine, e.g., an increase in aircraft weight (| 2), and describes advantages provided by SPF/DB structure relative to insulation blankets and honeycomb structures flflf 30—34). For example, paragraph 30 of the Specification states that “[t]he SPF/DB inner wall 132 provides better corrosion resistance and thermal protection than honeycomb structures.” None of the portions of the Specification cited by Appellants set forth any particular time frame upon which the prior art recognized the disadvantages associated with insulation blankets and honeycomb structures, or even allege that these disadvantages were recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler, 829 F.3d 1317, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating, “whether there is a Tong-felt need is analyzed as of the date of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem’”) (quoting Texas Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent a showing of long-felt need or the failure of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not evidence of nonobviousness.”). Additionally, none of the portions of the Specification cited by Appellants quantifies, in any detail, the benefits SPF/DB structures provide, 11 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 and, instead, these portions merely contend that SPF/DB structure is superior in that it provides, for example, “better corrosion resistance,” “higher structural strength,” “better fatigue performance,” and a nacelle that is “lighter” with “smoother surfaces.” Considering all the evidence of record, and given the lack of detail provided by Appellants regarding the alleged objective indicia of non obviousness, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Adamson and Runyan. Accordingly, Rejection (VII) is affirmed with respect to claims 1 and claims 2 and 5—8 depending therefrom. Claims 13—15 and 19 Appellants argue claims 13—15 and 19 as a group, stating, “[t]he examiner errs by relying on the combination of Adamson and Runyan because, as discussed above, Runyan does not teach or suggest using an SPF/DB structure in place of Adamson’s welded/bonded/brazed noise suppression panels 12. Therefore, the ’103 rejection of claims 13-15 and 19 should be reversed.” Appeal Br. 10. For the same reasons discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Adamson and Runyan, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—15 and 19. Rejections (VIII)—(IX); Adamson, Runyan, Parente, and Scarr Appellants make no arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 3 and 4 apart from those made with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9—15. Accordingly, claims 3 and 4 fall with claim 1. 12 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 Rejection (X); Adamson, Runyan, and Harp Appellants argue claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 as a group and assert that Harp “does not suggest adding a septum to an SPF/DB structure . . . Harp does not describe how to create a septum in an SPF/DB structure,” and therefore, Harp is not enabling for the modification to Adamson proposed by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 11. In this regard, Appellants state, “[t]he disclosure in an assertedly anticipating reference must provide an enabling disclosure of the desired subject matter; mere naming or description of the subject matter is insufficient, if it cannot be produced without undue experimentation.” Id. (citing Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found, for Med. Educ. and Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Appellants also citq Impax Labs. v. Aventis Pharms., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) for the same principle. Id. Appellants’ arguments on this point are unavailing. Not only do Appellants’ arguments fail to provide any persuasive explanation as to why the Examiner’s proposed combination of Adamson and Harp is not enabled, Appellants refer to case law relating to rejections based on anticipation, not obviousness. “Under § 103, however, a reference need not be enabled; it qualifies as a prior art, regardless, for whatever is disclosed therein.” Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 16, and 17. Rejection (XI); Adamson, Runyan, and Patterson Claims 11 and 18 Claims 11 recites, “[t]he system of claim 9, wherein cells are pyramid-shaped,” and claim 18 recites the same limitation, but depends from claim 15. Appeal Br. 17—18. 13 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 Appellants make arguments for the patentability of claims 11 and 18 as a group. Appeal Br. 12—15. First, Appellants assert, “Patterson is silent about noise attenuation, SPF/DB structures, engine nacelles, and air flow through ducts. In any event, Patterson is silent about SPF/DB noise attenuation cells that are pyramid-shaped.” Id. at 12. Thus, according to Appellants, “Patterson provides no reason for modifying the resonating cavities 30 and 32 of Adamson’s core.” Id. at 12—13. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Adamson relies on increasing flexibility, and this would be contrary to the actual effect of the modification, which would be to increase stiffness as taught by paragraph 44 of Appellants’ Specification. Id. at 13. The Examiner responds by noting that the rejection of claims 11 and 18 relies on Adamson, not Patterson, to teach noise attenuation cells, and the reasoning for modifying Adamson to include the pyramid structure Patterson teaches “is to increase the strength to weight ratio (PATTERSON column 1, lines 21-27) and design flexibility (PATTERSON column 3, lines 8-15) of the panel.” Ans. 12—13. In reply, Appellants reiterate that the use of pyramid-shaped cells does not increase flexibility, and if it did, this would degrade the ability of the structure disclosed by Adamson to suppress sound. Reply Br. 8. Thus, according to Appellants, the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Adamson to include pyramid-shaped cells is deficient. Id. at 8—9. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments because the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Adamson based on the teachings of Patterson relies on increasing the strength to weight ratio of Adamson’s panel as well as increasing design flexibility. Appellants do not argue that the proposed 14 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 modification to Adamson to include the pyramid-shaped structure taught in Patterson would not increase the strength to weight ratio. Additionally, this benefit is explicitly taught by Patterson’s statement that its pyramidal structure is “capable of distributing stresses in such a manner as to increase the strength to weight ratio of the core structure of any suitable materials capable of being formed and bonded.” Patterson 1:25—28; see also id. 3:7— 11. Additionally, contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the “flexibility” provided by Patterson’s pyramid-shaped structure is design flexibility (versatility), not flexibility in the sense of a reduction in stiffness. See id. 3:11—15. Thus, the Examiner’ s reasoning for modifying Adamson based on the teachings of Patterson is supported by rational underpinnings. Appellants next assert that Patterson is non-analogous art because it does not “address the problems peculiar to reducing engine noise in a turbine engine” and “is silent about. . . SPF/DB structures, engine nacelles, and air flow through ducts.” Appeal Br. 14. In response, the Examiner states, “since both the panel of PATTERSON and the Appellant’s inner wall panel are structural panels used in aircraft environment, they are considered within the same field of endeavor.” Ans. 13 (emphasis added). The Examiner has the better position on this point. Paragraph 18 of Appellants’ Specification discusses certain structural functions of Appellants’ claimed invention. Patterson is directed to a pyramidal structure for a panel. See Patterson, Abstract. Patterson indicates that this generic structure “should prove useful in the construction of houses, aircraft, rigid airships, ships, submersibles, spacecraft, automobiles and trucks, to name a few.” Patterson 3:12—15. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that 15 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 Patterson is in the same field of endeavor is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants next contend that “Patterson does not enable a person skilled in the art to manufacture pyramid-shaped cells of an SPF/DB structure.” Appeal Br. 14. In support of this contention, Appellants again cite Impax Labs. v. Aventis Pharms., 468 F.3d at 1383. Id. Appellants provide no persuasive discussion as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any difficulty combining the teachings of Adamson, Runyan, and Patterson as proposed by the Examiner. In any event, as discussed above, Appellants’ argument regarding the enablement requirements in an anticipation rejection are not applicable to a rejection based on obviousness. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d at 1357. We affirm Rejection (XI) with respect to claims 11 and 18. Claim 12 Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and recites, “wherein walls of the cells are perforated to provide two additional degrees of freedom for noise attenuation.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellants contend that “the office action appears to ignore claim language about perforations in the pyramid-shaped cells. Due to this additional legal error, the ’103 rejection of claim 12 should be reversed.” Appeal Br. 14. In the Reply Brief, Appellants reiterate the same argument regarding flexibility discussed above regarding claims 11 and 18. Reply Br. 9. Appellants’ arguments are unavailing because the Examiner did not ignore the requirement for perforations recited in claim 12. Rather, as 16 Appeal 2016-006060 Application 13/410,049 explained on pages 14—15 of the Answer, the rejection of claim 12 relies on Adamson to teach perforations and relies on Patterson to teach pyramid shapes. As for Appellants’ argument regarding the flexibility vel non of pyramid-shaped cells, we disagree for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 11 and 18. DECISION Rejections (I)—(VI) are reversed. Rejections (VII)-(XI) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation