Ex Parte Sypeck et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

10296728 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

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.
10/296,728 11/25/2002 David J. Sypeck 3053.135.US 1037
26474 7590 02/01/2012
NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP
300 NEW JERSEY AVENUE NW
FIFTH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
EXAMINER
PIZIALI, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1798
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID J. SYPECK and
HAYDIN N.G. WADLEY
____________

Appeal 2009-013278
Application 10/296,728
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MARK NAGUMO,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 25-33.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2009-013278
Application 10/296,728

2

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a cellular structure
comprising a plurality of vertically stacked textile layers wherein each of the
layers are discretely bonded at selected points of contact to immediately
adjacent textile layers, and a method of making same. The discrete bonds
are formed using a material that is distinct from materials used to make the
adjacent layers that are bonded at selected points of contact.
Further details are apparent upon review of claim 1, which claim is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A cellular structure comprising:
a plurality of vertically stacked textile layers, wherein at least N
number (N > 1) of each of said stacked textile layers comprise:
an array of intersecting structural support members forming apertures
of predetermined geometric configurations, wherein each of said
predetermined geometric apertures are vertically aligned with respective
apertures of corresponding immediate adjacent textile layers;
said textile layers having a top side and a bottom side;
said textile layers having a perimeter with at least three perimeter
sides; wherein:
at least a portion of said top side of each of said textile layers for the
first through (Nth-1) layers comprise a top adjoining region;
at least a portion of said bottom side of each of said textile layers for
the second through (Nth) layers comprise a bottom adjoining region; and
wherein each of said textile layers are discretely bonded at selected
points of contact to immediate adjacent textile layers, wherein said discrete
bonds are formed:
between said top adjoining region and said bottom adjoining region,
and
using a material distinct from materials used to make said immediate
adjacent textile layers.
Appeal 2009-013278
Application 10/296,728

3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Karttunen 5,888,609 Mar. 30, 1999
Allagnat 5,176,949 Jan. 5, 1993
Haerle 5,266,279 Nov. 30, 1993

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1-6, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 25-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Karttunen in view of Allagnat. Claims 15
and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Karttunen in view of Allagnat and Haerle.
We reverse the stated rejections. Our reasoning follows.
Rejection over Karttunen and Allagnat
Karttunen discloses a planar porous composite including a plurality of
textile layers placed on top of each other (col. 3, ll. 28-41; col. 7, l. 51- col.
8, l. 40; col. 8, ll. 54-65; Figs. 1 and 3). The layers are made of yarns
comprising reinforcing fiber and a matrix material (col. 3, ll. 54-59; col. 9, l.
64 – col. 10, l. 3; Figs 9 and 10). The yarn matrix material forms a matrix
which binds the layers together (col. 3, ll. 54-59; col. 8, ll. 29-40; Figs. 1 and
2). Each layer has a plurality of openings extending there through and the
composite structure has a plurality of passages that extend entirely through
the structure. These passages are made by alignment of the openings of the
layers with each other layer using alignment pins 7 that extend through the
passages (col. 3, ll. 49-54; col. 7, l. 65- col. 8, l. 15; Fig. 1).
The Examiner recognizes that Karttunen does not disclose using a
discretely applied bonding material that is distinct from the materials used in
making the immediately adjacent layers, and, if used, applied in a manner
Appeal 2009-013278
Application 10/296,728

4
that would correspond to the bonding material application required by all of
the appealed claims (Ans. 4).
The Examiner turns to Allagnat. The Examiner maintains that (Ans.
4):
Allagnat discloses that it is known in the art to discretely
adhere immediately adjacent textile layers at selected points of
contact using a material distinct (as defined on page 11, lines 27
and 28 of the current specification) from materials used to make
the immediately adjacent textile layers (see entire document
including column 4, line 46 through column 5, line 2). Allagnat
even discloses that said bonding method results in a structure
wherein the flow of resin is not obstructed (column 2, lines 44-
63), as desired by Karttunen.
The adhesive method disclosed by Karttunen results in
bonding at all fiber-to-fiber contact points (see Figures), but the
adhesive method disclosed by Allagnat comprises point-
fashion adhesive application (column 1, lines 51-61 and column
3, lines 47-61) which allows for bonding at any desired
location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discretely
bond immediately adjacent textile layers at selected points of
contact using a material distinct from materials used to make
the immediately adjacent textile layers, as taught by Allagnat,
motivated by a desire to increase bonding control and because it
is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a
known method of fiber bonding on the basis of its suitability
and desired characteristics.

The Examiner further articulates the rationale for the proposed
modification of Karttunen explaining that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been “motivated to assemble (perform) the textile layers before
the layers are formed into a final composite piece.”1
However, as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 9):

1 See Final Office action (FOA 3).
Appeal 2009-013278
Application 10/296,728

5
the textile layers in Karttuen are stacked up over pins 7
extending from the "press organ," with the pins 7 extending
through the textile loops. Therefore, the pins 7 will properly
position and hold the textile layers in place without needing to
spot-apply a hot-melt composition (i.e., an adhesive) to the
textile layers to hold them together and/or to semi-rigidify
them. Accordingly, there would have been no reason for one
skilled in the art to incorporate Allagnat's process into
Karttunen' s method.

In this regard, Allagnat teaches the application of a hot melt
composition onto one or two faces of textile reinforcement in a loosely
distributed (point fashion) form, which makes it possible to preform the
reinforcement (col. 2, l. 37- 63: col. 3, ll. 50-61; col. 5, ll. 35-58; Figs 1 and
2). In Allagnat, the adhesive composition is applied to a face of the
reinforcement before the reinforcement is, if desired, impregnated with a
resin (matrix) (col. 4, ll. 55-58; Example 2). Allagnat does not address
aligning the openings in a plurality of textile layers of the type disclosed by
Karttunen; that is layers that are made with yarn that includes matrix
material, which matrix material is sufficient to bind the reinforcing fibers of
the stacked layers together to form a stiff structure and which matrix
material serves to adhere the consolidated layers together (Karttunen; col. 3,
ll. 65-68; col. 8, ll. 32-36; see generally Allagnat).
In rebuttal, the Examiner notes that Karttunen adheres the fibers
together (Ans. 7); however, Karttunen provides for fiber bonding by
including binding matrix (adhesive) in the yarns that make up the layers (col.
3, ll. 65-67). Based on this record and from our perspective, the
Examiner’s proffered rationale for the proposed modification of Karttunen
does not serve to reasonably articulate why one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2009-013278
Application 10/296,728

6
would have been led to use the pre-polymer/hardener adhesive bond material
taught by Allagnat for use in forming preforms of a dry textile
reinforcement, and which preforms do not include resin (matrix) therein, as a
discrete bonding medium for adhering fibers together in Karttunen. This is
because Karttunen has provided for the binding material by making the
layers with yarns that contain matrix material.
In addition and as noted above, Karttunen employs alignment pins for
aligning the layers. The Examiner has not presented a fully developed
rationale for including the pre-polymer/ hardener combination of Allagnat in
the composite structure of Karttunen that reasonably explains how this
added bonding material would be applied in a manner that is suggested by
the applied references and such that its application would be accomplished
in a manner that is consonant with the use of the alignment pins of
Karttunen.
On this record, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection over
Karttunen and Allagnat.
Rejection over Karttunen, Allagnat and Haerle
The Examiner relies on Haerle for allegedly teaching features
corresponding to the limitations added by claims 15 and 16. Haerle is not
relied upon for teaching or suggesting the discrete bonding feature, as
recited in the independent claims. It follows that we likewise reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 15 and 16 for the reasons
discussed above and in the Briefs with respect to the base rejection.

ORDER
Appeal 2009-013278
Application 10/296,728

7
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 25-
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karttunen in view of
Allagnat; and to reject claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Karttunen in view of Allagnat and Haerle is reversed.

REVERSED

tc