13433106 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

Ex Parte Whitworth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 17, 2016

13433106 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 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. 13/433,106 03/28/2012 Denver R. Whitworth 11-29 (1596-0800) 8178 41804 7590 02/17/2016 KLEMCHUK LLP 8150 North Central Expressway 10th Floor DALLAS, TX 75206 EXAMINER LEE, JAEYUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2016 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 DENVER R. WHITWORTH, ERIC W. NOTTORF, VANCE N. CRIBB III, and DUMITRU JITARIU ____________ Appeal 2014-009665 Application 13/433,106 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–8. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2014-009665 Application 13/433,106 2 Independent claim 1 reads (emphasis added): 1. A method for repairing a laminated composite, the method comprising: mapping dimensions and arrangement of a plurality of plies forming the laminated composite; defining a repair region by identifying at least one of the plurality of plies that is damaged; peeling and removing the one or more damaged plies from the repair region, wherein each of the one or more damaged plies is separately peeled and removed; and adding at least one replacement ply to the repair region. The Examiner maintains the following rejections: (a) claims 1–6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cork et al. (US 2008/0281554 A1, published November 13, 2008) (hereinafter “Cork”), Perkins (US 2009/0234616 A1, published September 17, 2009), and Holland (US 2007/0079920 A1, published April 12, 2007), (b) claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cork, Perkins, Holland, and Westerman et al. (US 4,987,700, issued January 29, 1991) (hereinafter “Westerman”), and (c) claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cork, Perkins, Holland, and Normand et al. (US 2010/0136309 A1, issued June 3, 2010) (hereinafter “Normand”). Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 (Rejection (a)) and separately rejected claims 7 and 8 (Rejections (b) and (c)) together. App. Br. 5. Appellants present separate arguments for claims 3 and 4 (Rejection (a)). Id. at 9. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal and focus our discussion on Rejection (a). Appeal 2014-009665 Application 13/433,106 3 Claims 1, 2, and 5–8 will stand or fall with independent claim 1. Claims argued separately will be addressed separately. ANALYSIS We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly, we will sustain all of the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer and we add the following for emphasis. Rejection (a) Independent claim 1 is directed to a repair method that requires defining a repair region by identifying at least one of plurality of plies of a laminated composite that is damaged and separately peeling and removing the at least one of plurality of damaged plies from the repair region. The Examiner found Cork discloses repairing a laminated composite by mapping dimensions and arrangement of a plurality of plies forming the laminated composite 12 in a repair region using a computing device 24 and adding at least one replacement ply 46 to the repair region. Final Act. 2; Cork Figures 1–5, ¶¶ 21, 22, 38–41. The Examiner found Cork does not disclose (1) defining a repair region by identifying at least one of the plurality of plies that is damaged and (2) separately peeling and removing each of the identified damaged plies from the repair region. Final Act. 2. Regarding (1), the Examiner found Perkins discloses as known to digitally describe damage on composite components with a system to identify a part Appeal 2014-009665 Application 13/433,106 4 in need of repair. Final Act. 3; Perkins ¶¶ 38–40. Regarding (2), the Examiner found Holland discloses repairing a damaged inlet cap of turbine engine comprising a structural fiber layer made of a plurality of constituent layers by cutting around the damaged portion of each constituent layer and peeling the damaged constituent layers from the structural fiber layer. Final Act. 3; Holland Figures 3–4; Abstract, ¶ 15, 16, 23. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the method of Cork to include Perkins’ step of digitally identifying the damaged layers of Cork’s laminated composite and Holland’s step peeling the damaged portion of each layer so that all the damaged layers are identified and repaired. Final Act. 3–4. Appellants argue Perkins does not disclose identifying at least one of the plurality of plies that is damaged and accordingly defining a repair region of a laminated composite as claimed. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants, Perkins discloses evaluating the part, not any individual plies forming the part. App. Br. 6; Perkins Abstract, ¶¶ 32, 38–40, 43. That is, Appellants argue that Perkins’ repair steps focus on repairing the composite part as a whole and does not disclose identifying an individual ply that is damaged for repair. App. Br. 6. We are unpersuaded by these arguments and agree with the Examiner’s determination that Perkins identifies a repair area in a composite part and, as such, identifies the individual layers of the multilayered part in need of repair. Ans. 8; Perkins ¶¶ 2, 32. Moreover, Perkins discloses taking into account the details of the textile plies and their relative orientation in the composite material in the repair analysis. Perkins ¶ 89. It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the Appeal 2014-009665 Application 13/433,106 5 inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Thus, one of ordinary skill would reasonably infer from Perkins’ disclosure that identifying a repair area in a composite also identifies the individual plies in the composite in need of repair. Appellants have not directed our attention to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish error in the Examiner’s determination. Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been able to modify the repair method of Cork to identify individual layers in need of repair in the composite of Cork by using Perkins’ step of identifying a repair area based on the inferences from Perkins’ disclosure. Appellants argue Holland discloses making a cut around the damaged portion of each constituent structural layer when peeling while the claimed invention does not utilize any cutting. App. Br. 8; Holland ¶ 23; Spec. ¶¶ 2, 15. We also find this argument unavailing. As noted by the Examiner, independent claim 1 is written using the open transitional language “comprising,” which does not exclude the use of a cutting step as disclosed by Holland. Ans. 9. Moreover, Appellants’ Specification encompasses scoring of the damaged plies before peeling. Spec. ¶ 17. Thus, Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have been able to modify the repair method of Cork to include a step of peeling and removing damaged individual layers in need of repair in Cork’s composite as taught by Holland. Appeal 2014-009665 Application 13/433,106 6 Appellants additionally argue Holland is nonanalogous art because Holland is directed to repair of an inlet cap of a turbine engine and is not directed to laminated composites having plies. App. Br. 7. This argument is unavailing because, as noted by the Examiner, Holland is directed to repair of multilayered articles. Ans. 8; Holland ¶¶ 15, 16. Appellants additionally argue the Examiner failed to show Cork teaches the claimed mapping step. App. Br. 8–9. That is, the Examiner has not shown support in Cork for the explanation that the computing device meets this step. Id. This argument is also unpersuasive for the reasons presented by the Examiner. Ans. 9. Moreover, Cork discloses mapping the ply boundaries in a repair area using imaging and computing devices. Cork ¶ 38. Thus, one skilled in the art would reasonably infer from Cork’s disclosure that Cork maps the dimensions and arrangement of a plurality of plies forming the laminated composite as claimed. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1264–65. Appellants have not adequately explained how the claimed mapping step differs from Cork’s disclosed mapping step. Regarding claims 3 and 4, Appellants argue Cork does not disclose the claimed process of creating a repair patch. App. Br. 9–10. Appellants further argue the Examiner has not shown the claimed aligning steps. App. Br. 10. We are again unpersuaded and agree with the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Ans. 9–10. As noted by the Examiner, Cork discloses manufacturing a repair ply for each layer in need of repair and aligning the repair ply with its corresponding layer. Ans. 9–10; Cork Appeal 2014-009665 Application 13/433,106 7 Figures 1, 6, ¶¶ 34, 40. Appellants have not adequately explained how the claimed steps of creating and aligning a repair patch differs from Cork’s disclosed steps. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) (Rejections (a)–(c)) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–8 are affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED