Ex Parte Stenzel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

12089158 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
12/089,158 07/15/2008 Volkmar Stenzel 078.2007US 9907
96516 7590 12/19/2016
T Kfrlnhal fAirhns;^ EXAMINER
7010 E. Cochise Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
ADKINS, CHINESSAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VOLKMAR STENZEL, MARTIN KAUNE,
HUBERTUS LOHNER, and OTTMAR SCHRAMM
Appeal 2015-006275
Application 12/089,1581
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 26, 28, 29, 38, 40, and 42-44 in the above-
identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Airbus Operations GmbH as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2, Dec. 16, 2014.
2 Office Action, July 28, 2014 [hereinafter Final Action],
Appeal 2015-006275
Application 12/089,158
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to “the use of certain filler-containing
polyurethane lacquers as an abrasion-resistant coating, in particular for the
visible abrasion region of aircraft components mechanically rubbing on one
another during operation,” and specifically, “the region of the aircraft
landing flaps in the contact region with the spoilers.” Spec. 1. Claim 26 is
the sole independent claim on appeal:
26. An aircraft landing flap comprising:
a flap member having an abrasion region in an area
configured for exposure to mechanical rubbing contacts with an
aircraft spoiler; and
an abrasion-resistant coating on the abrasion region of
the flap member arranged so that the mechanical rubbing
contacts by the aircraft spoiler are made against the coating,
wherein the abrasion-resistant coating comprises:
a) a polyurethane matrix based on aliphatic components,
b) fillers embedded in the polyurethane matrix so as to
increase resistance to abrasion, wherein the increase in
resistance to abrasion measured after abrasion corresponding to
1500 of the mechanical rubbing contacts produces at least 30%
less loss of the abrasion resistant coating relative to a coating of
the polyurethane matrix without the embedded fillers, and
the fillers further comprise a first filler having a Mohs
hardness of at most 2 and a particle size of 3pm 7 on the Mohs
scale) in the same composite coating. The use of particles within two
widely-separated Mohs hardness ranges is more than just routine
optimization, and the Examiner has not provided a persuasive reason why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have adopted this feature of claim
26 at the time of filing.
Therefore, the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 26. The
rejections of dependent claims 28, 29, 38, 40, and 42-44 do not remedy this
error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 26, 28, 29,
38, 40, and 42^14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4