LM WP PATENT HOLDING A/SDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 1, 20212020006466 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021) 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. 14/765,674 08/04/2015 Martin DAHL 34054U 1043 20529 7590 10/01/2021 NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER Joshua Goldberg 112 South West Street Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER EMRICH, LARISSA ROWE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2021 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): USPTO@nathlaw.com jgoldberg@nathlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARTIN DAHL and LARS NIELSEN Appeal 2020-006466 Application 14/765,674 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Aug. 4, 2015 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Sept. 10, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 14, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer dated June 12, 2020 (“Ans.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies LM WP PATENT HOLDING A/S as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006466 Application 14/765,674 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a filler rope. Spec. 1:4. The Specification describes the use of filler ropes in resin rich areas or resin pools at the joints between the leg and the feet (or flanges) of modern wind turbine blades. Id. at 4:4–17. According to the Specification, the glass fibers in known filler ropes are unidirectionally oriented, densely packed, and may lead to dry reinforcement fibers in the center of the rope, which, in turn, may lead to mechanical weak points. Id. at 13:25–28. The Specification discloses chopped reinforcement fibers having a random orientation whereby the fibers are not as densely packed to ensure proper wetting through the entire rope and a number of the fibers are oriented in the transverse direction to contribute to the transverse strength. Id. at 14:1–13. The Specification describes containing the chopped reinforcement fibers in a retaining means in the form of a mesh tube. Id. at 14:3–4. The mask size of the mesh tube is described in the Specification as generally large enough for resin to penetrate and for the chopped fibers to protrude through, while small enough to ensure that the chopped fibers are retained within the mesh tube. Id. at 14:25–28. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim in this appeal and illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added). 1. A fibre reinforcement rope for reinforcing joints in fibre-reinforced composite structures, comprising: chopped reinforcement fibres comprising glass fibres, a majority of the chopped reinforcement fibers having a random orientation, and which have an average length between 0.5 cm and 5 cm; and retaining means for retaining the chopped reinforcement fibres in a rope-shape, wherein the retaining means is an open- Appeal 2020-006466 Application 14/765,674 3 structured tube or a mesh tube, and wherein the chopped reinforcement fibres are retained in the open-structured tube or the mesh tube. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the appealed rejections. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 16 as follows: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 2, 4–6, 16 103(a) Barnett, 3 Garrett,4 Ozawa5 The Examiner finds Barnett teaches randomly oriented non- compacted staple glass fiber rope packing for use in expansion joints that are of random length overlapping Appellant’s claimed length, but does not teach an average length overlapping Appellant’s claimed range. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds Garrett teaches greater mechanical strength can be achieved with filamentous glass sized to lengths of 0.13 to 2.00 inches 3 US 3,771,305, issued Nov. 13, 1973. 4 US 5,196,467, issued Mar. 23, 1993. 5 US 3,490,219, issued Jan. 20, 1970. Appeal 2020-006466 Application 14/765,674 4 (0.33–5.08 cm), which closely overlaps the claimed average length. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to bind the glass staple fibers of Barnett in view of Garrett with Ozawa’s surface wrapping of net-like configuration such that the compressibility and loftiness taught by Barnett is maintained. Id. at 5. Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 16 as a group. Appeal Br. 7– 12. Accordingly, claims 2, 4–6, and 16 stand or fall together with claim 1 from which they depend. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Ozawa requires the core fibers must be oriented unidirectionally in order to form its net-like wrapping around core fibers. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Ozawa, Figs. 3). According to Appellant, “[t]he random nature of the fibers would make it impossible for a secure, ‘net-like configuration’ to be formed about the core fibers, since such a secure, regularly-oriented outer wrapping would require uniformity of orientation of the outer wrapping fibers.” Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Ozawa with Barnett and Garrett would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. at 11–12. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Barnett, Garrett, and Ozawa. Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 2) that Ozawa’s Figures 3 and 4 limit the application of Ozawa’s net-like configuration to bind unidirectionally oriented staple fibers is not persuasive of error because “a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples.” In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (citation omitted). Instead, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested Appeal 2020-006466 Application 14/765,674 5 to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the [prior art] patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.”). As the Examiner finds (Ans. 8) and Appellant does not dispute (Appeal Br. 10), Ozawa does not explicitly require the fibers to be oriented in only the longitudinal direction in order to be bound by a net-like wrapping. The Examiner’s finding that Ozawa suggests the use of different types of core fibers because Ozawa’s wrapping is relative to the surface fibers is supported by the cited disclosures in Ozawa. Ans. 9 (citing Ozawa 1:64–2:2, 2:13–19). Ozawa teaches swirling, pressurized fluid causes short fibers positioned on the circumferential portion to twist around the main portion in a net like configuration. Ozawa 2:13–19. Thus the properties of Ozawa’s core fibers are maintained and only the surface fibers are modified by Ozawa into a net-like construction. Appellant’s position (Appeal Br. 11–12) that Ozawa’s core fibers cannot be randomly oriented because the fibers would make it “impossible” to produce a securely wrapped fiber core is not persuasive of error because mere arguments in the Brief cannot take the place of objective evidence. See, e.g., In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705; In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972). In addition, as the Examiner finds, Barnett teaches that its fibers are not compacted during formation so that the finished product retains its compressibility and loftiness. Final Act. 5; Barnett 2:45–50; see also Barnett 1:59–62 (“Due to the randomly oriented non-compacted staple glass fibers of the packing, the packing possesses the desired compressibility and Appeal 2020-006466 Application 14/765,674 6 loftiness required of a material for packing purposes.”). Thus, Barnett reasonably suggests to a skilled artisan that binding of the core fibers, such as by Ozawa’s net-like wrapping, can be performed to achieve “a desired compressibility and loftiness required of a material for packing purposes.” Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 9) that it would have been within the level of skill of an ordinary artisan to choose the appropriate process to arrive at the final structure. Because “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” the teachings of the cited prior art references are not restricted to the confines of specific examples such as Ozawa’s Figures 3 and 4. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 421 (2007). In sum, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to use the net-like wrapping of discontinuous fibers taught by Ozawa to bind the randomly oriented, non-compacted, staple glass core fibers taught by Barnett and Garrett. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Barnett, Garrett, and Ozawa. CONCLUSION For these reasons, and the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2020-006466 Application 14/765,674 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–6, 16 103(a) Barnett, Garrett, Ozawa 1, 2, 4–6, 16 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation