Ex Parte Stadtlander et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201311441893 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/441,893 05/26/2006 Daniel M. Stadtlander 2244U;67097-649PUS1 9648 54549 7590 04/24/2013 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER SCHATZ, CHRISTOPHER T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte DANIEL M. STADTLANDER and WILLIAM BOGUE ________________ Appeal 2012-002364 Application 11/441,893 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002364 Application 11/441,893 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-25. Claims 1-11, which are all of the other claims, stand withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a perforated composite. Claims 12 and 13 are illustrative: 12. A perforated composite component having a section restored including a non-perforated skin and a honeycomb between the non- perforated skin and a repair material prepared by a process comprising the steps of: (a) removing an undesirable section of a perforated skin; (b) depositing a repair material in the location of the removed undesirable section; (c) curing the repair material; and (d) forming at least one opening through the repair material prior to completing step (c) to produce at least one perforation through the repair material upon completing step (c). 13. A perforated composite component comprising: a honeycomb; a perforated skin bonded to the honeycomb; and a repair section bonded to the perforated skin, wherein the repair section comprises at least one perforation that extends there through and at least one continuous reinforcement fiber that has been displaced within the repair section to accommodate the at least one perforation. Appeal 2012-002364 Application 11/441,893 3 The References Scanlon US 5,246,520 Sep. 21, 1993 Mnich US 5,807,628 Sep. 15, 1998 Westre US 5,866,272 Feb. 2, 1999 Charmes US 6,355,203 B1 Mar. 12, 2002 Ohliger US 6,451,241 B1 Sep. 17, 2002 Jackson US 2004/0126537 A1 Jul. 1, 2004 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claim 12 over Charmes in view of Mnich, claims 13-16 and 24 over Charmes in view of Jackson, claim 17 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Westre, claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Scanlon, claims 13-16, 24 and 25 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and Scanlon. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Rejection of claim 12 over Charmes in view of Mnich Claim 12 requires a perforated composite having a section restored by a repair material with at least one perforation through it. Charmes discloses a process for repairing a defect (hole 1a) in an object (1) comprising a honeycomb core (22) covered by a fiber/resin composite (20, 21) (col. 1, ll. 38-45; col. 5, ll. 57-63; col. 9, ll. 11-14). Charmes fills the defect with a honeycomb core piece (24) and fiber/resin composite pieces (2, 23) such that the object’s fiber/resin composite surface is continuous (col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6, l. 41; col. 6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 19; col. 9, ll. 11-25; Fig. 3). The only exemplified object is an aircraft wing (col. 3, l. 30; col. 5, l. 60; col. 6, l. 67). Appeal 2012-002364 Application 11/441,893 4 Mnich discloses a process for repairing a sound suppression panel comprising a honeycomb core (12) covered by a perforated metal sheet (18) having thereon a damaged porous wire cloth (22) (col. 2, l. 51 – col. 3, l. 4). Mnich strips away the wire cloth (22), sands the perforated sheet (18) to the bare metal, vacuums, through the perforated sheet (18)’s perforations (20), the interior of the honeycomb core (12)’s cells (14) to remove from them any debris, and then forms a thin polymer film (24) on the outer surface of the perforated sheet (18) (col. 3, ll. 10-45). The Examiner argues that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perforate the repair material of Charmes in order for any debris collected during the repair process to be removed by vacuum through the perforations” (Ans. 8). Mnich vacuums through the perforations (20) because the sheet (18) containing the perforations is not removed during the repair process (col. 3, ll. 28-37). Charmes removes the defect (1a) in the fiber/resin composite (20, 21) and then fills the defect (1a) with a honeycomb core piece (24) and fiber/resin composite pieces (2, 23) (col. 9, ll. 11-25; Fig. 3). The Examiner has not provided an apparent reason why, to remove debris generated during removal of the defect (1a), one of ordinary skill in the art would have perforating the fiber/resin composite repair pieces (2, 23) and removed the debris through the perforations rather than removing the debris before the fiber/resin composite repair pieces (2, 23) are installed. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner). Also, the Examiner has not established that one of Appeal 2012-002364 Application 11/441,893 5 ordinary skill in the art would have desired perforations in Charmes’ skins (monolithic layers 20, 21), the only examples of which are aircraft wing surfaces (col. 3, l. 30; col. 5, l. 60; col. 6, l. 67). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 12 over Charmes in view of Mnich. Rejections of claims 13-16 and 24 over Charmes in view of Jackson, claim 17 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Westre and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Scanlon We need to address only claim 13, which is the sole independent claim among claims 13-24.1 That claim requires a perforated skin which includes a perforated repair material. Jackson teaches that “[h]oneycomb panels typically include load carrying or structural layers on opposite sides of the honeycomb cellular structure” (¶ 0004). Jackson perforates the structural layers (16) to prevent gases and/or liquids from being trapped in the honeycomb cells (12, 14) (¶¶ 0012, 0040, 0043). Jackson states that “[b]ecause the cells[’] walls are not damaged by trapped moisture, the vented cell structure 10 of the present invention does not need to be replaced as often as conventional cell structures” (¶ 0044). The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Jackson to perforate Charmes’ skin sections (monolithic layers 20, 21) and repair sections (2, 23) to prevent 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Westre or Scanlon for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Charmes and Jackson as to the independent claim (Ans. 6-9). Appeal 2012-002364 Application 11/441,893 6 gases and moisture from being trapped in the honeycomb sections (22, 24) (Ans. 5-6). Although, like Charmes’ skins (monolithic layers 20, 21) and repair materials (2, 23) (col. 1, ll. 6-9, 38-45; col. 6, ll. 2-12; col. 9, ll. 12-25), Jackson’s structural layers (16) can be fiber-reinforced composites (¶ 0040), Jackson’s structural layers (16) are part of a vented cell structure (10) and function to provide structural stabilization for honeycomb layers (12, 14) between them (¶ 0040). Thus, it appears that Jackson’s structural layers (16) are not comparable to Charmes’ skins (20, 21) but, rather, would be part of Charmes’ honeycomb piece (24). The Examiner has not established that Jackson’s perforation of such vented cell structural layers (16) to prevent gases and/or liquids from being trapped in the honeycomb cells (12, 14) between them (¶¶ 0040, 0043) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to perforate Charmes’ skins (20, 21) which, Charmes indicates, can be aircraft wing surfaces (col. 3, l. 30; col. 5, l. 60; col. 6, l. 67). Hence, we reverse the rejections of claims 13-16 and 24 over Charmes in view of Jackson, claim 17 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Westre and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Scanlon. Rejections of claims 13-16, 24 and 25 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and Scanlon We need to address only claim 13, which is the sole independent claim among claims 13-24.2 2 The Examiner does not rely upon Scanlon for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Charmes and Jackson as to the independent claim (Ans. 10). Appeal 2012-002364 Application 11/441,893 7 Ohliger discloses a sound suppression panel comprising a multilayer resin-impregnated graphite fiber sheet (16) having perforations which are completely sealed by glass fabric (52, 54) and partially filled by elastomeric material (56) (col. 2, ll. 43-54; col. 4, ll. 10-19). The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Ohliger to perforate Charmes’ skins (monolithic layers 20, 21) to improve their acoustic properties (Ans. 9). Charmes’ only disclosed repaired object is an aircraft wing (col. 3, l. 30; col. 5, l. 60; col. 6, l. 67). The Examiner has not established that Charmes and Ohliger would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Charmes’ repair process to a structure that would benefit from improved acoustical properties. Hence, the Examiner’s combination of Charmes and Ohliger appears to be based on impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellants’ disclosure. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). We therefore reverse the rejections of claims 13-16, 24 and 25 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and Scanlon. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 12 over Charmes in view of Mnich, claims 13-16 and 24 over Charmes in view of Jackson, claim 17 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Westre, claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Jackson and Scanlon, claims 13-16, 24 and 25 over Appeal 2012-002364 Application 11/441,893 8 Charmes in view of Ohliger and claims 18-23 over Charmes in view of Ohliger and Scanlon are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation