Paul K. Oldroyd et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2019

14022524 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2019)

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.
14/022,524 09/10/2013 Paul K. Oldroyd 0021-00079 3397
130674 7590 10/02/2019
Lightfoot & Alford PLLC (BHTI)
4100 Eldorado Parkway
Suite 100-271
McKinney, TX 75070
EXAMINER
MIKUS, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2019 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):
lightfootalfordpllc@gmail.com
patentdocket@lightfootalford.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte PAUL K. OLDROYD,
WEI-YUEH LEE, JAMES D. HETHCOCK JR.,
JOHN R. MCCULLOUGH, and
PATRICK R. TISDALE
__________

Appeal 2019-001462
Application 14/022,524
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bell
Helicopter Textron Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 1, filed July 9, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001462
Application 14/022,524

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a composite rotor blade, as well
as a method of making the composite rotor blade.” Spec. ¶ 1, Figs. 1–5.
Claims 1 and 18 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. An airfoil member having a root end, a tip end, a leading
edge, and a trailing edge, the airfoil member comprising:
an upper skin;
a lower skin; and
a composite core member comprising at least two
adjacent cell members, each of the cell members being a
hexagonal tubular structure, an upper surface network of the at
least two adjacent cell members being bonded to the upper skin,
and a lower surface network of the at least two adjacent cell
members being bonded to the lower skin, wherein the at least
two adjacent cell members are generally tubular;
wherein a planar or bent planar septum is disposed
laterally between the at least two adjacent cell members, the
planar or bent planar septum being configured to provide
tailored characteristics of the airfoil member;
wherein the planar or bent planar septum does not
separate the upper surface network from the upper skin and
wherein the planar or bent planar septum does not separate the
lower surface network from the lower skin; and
wherein each of the at least two adjacent cell members
are in contact with a substantially vertical wall of the planar or
bent planar septum and at least one of the upper skin and the
lower skin.

Appeal 2019-001462
Application 14/022,524

3
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 13–15, and 18–202 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Doolin (US 5,346,367, issued Sept. 13, 1994).
II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Doolin and Hand (US 2009/0263627 A1, published Oct. 22, 2009).
III. Claims 6–8, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Doolin and Lee (US 9,096,316 B2, issued Aug. 4, 2015).
IV. Claims 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Doolin.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Anticipation by Doolin
The Examiner finds that Doolin discloses an airfoil member having all
the limitations of independent claims 1 and 18. Final Act. 2–3, 5. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Doolin discloses an airfoil member
having “a composite core member comprising at least two adjacent cell
members, each of the cell members being a hexagonal tubular structure” and
“wherein each of the at least two adjacent cell members are in contact with a
substantially vertical wall of [a] planar or bent planar septum and at least one
of [an] upper skin and [a] lower skin,” as claimed. Id. (citing Doolin 2:13–
17, Fig. 3). The Examiner explains that Doolin’s honeycomb cores 36 and
38 correspond to the claimed “at least two adjacent cell members . . . being a

2 The Examiner includes claim 2 in the header of this rejection. Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”) 2, dated Feb. 8, 2018. However, claim 2 is not discussed
in the body of the rejection (id. at 2–6) and claim 2 has been canceled (Appeal
Br. 7 (Claims App.)).
Appeal 2019-001462
Application 14/022,524

4
hexagonal tubular structure,” Doolin’s I-shaped web 40 corresponds to the
claimed “planar or bent planar septum,” Doolin’s top skin 32 corresponds to
the claimed “upper skin,” and Doolin’s bottom skin 34 corresponds to the
claimed “lower skin.” Id.; see also Ans. 3–4.3
Appellant argues that “the only cells [of honeycomb cores] 36, 38 that
can be considered adjacent and in contact with the septum 40 would be
blocked from contacting both the upper and lower skins by the laterally
extending portions of the I-beam shaped septum of Doolin.” Appeal Br. 4;
see also id. at 5.
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. As an initial matter, we note
that claims 1 and 18 recite “each of the cell members [is] a hexagonal
tubular structure” rather than “the composite core is a hexagonal structure.”
Appeal Br. 7, 11 (Claims App. (emphasis added)).
Figure 3 of Doolin illustrates a composite rotor blade and is
reproduced below:

Figure 3 is an exploded view of a chordal section through Doolin’s
composite rotor blade. Doolin 1:49–50.

3 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Oct. 5, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001462
Application 14/022,524

5
Doolin discloses that “[t]he blade includes top integrated spar/skin 32,
and bottom integrated spar/skin 34 which taper in chord wise and spanwise
directions over Nomex honeycomb cores 36 and 38.” Id. at 2:14–18
(emphasis added). Stated differently, cores 36 and 38 are honeycomb
structures. As such, at best, the cells within cores 36 and 38 have a
hexagonal tubular structure––rather than the overall structure of the cores
themselves. Thus, the Examiner is incorrect to find that cores 36 and 38
correspond to the “at least two adjacent cell members . . . being a hexagonal
tubular structure,” as claimed. See Final Act. 2–3, 5; Ans. 3–4.
Further, even if the Examiner correctly identifies the cell members of
cores 36 and 38 as cell members having a hexagonal tubular structure, we
note the following.
Figure 2 of Doolin, annotated and modified by Appellant, illustrates a
composite rotor blade with identified cell members and is reproduced below:

Annotated and modified Figure 2 is a partial chordal section through
Doolin’s composite rotor blade with cells labelled as “Adjacent Cell 1” and
“Adjacent Cell 2.” Reply Br. 3;4 see also Doolin 1:49–50.

4 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Dec. 5, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001462
Application 14/022,524

6
As Appellant explains,
the requirements of independent claims 1 and 18 would require
the two adjacent cells, labelled “Adjacent Cell 1” and “Adjacent
Cell 2” in the annotated Figure 2 of Doolin [above], are
necessarily the two tubular hexagonal structures that must be
examined for whether their upper and lower surface networks
contact the upper and lower skins, respectively.
Reply Br. 2. Thus, in the annotated and modified Figure 2, Appellant
correctly identifies labelled “Adjacent Cell 1” and “Adjacent Cell 2” as
corresponding to “the at least two adjacent cell members [that] are in contact
with a substantially vertical wall of the planar or bent planar septum” as
claimed, in which Figure 2 shows Doolin’s web 24 corresponding to “the
planar or bent planar septum.” See Doolin 2:1. However, these labeled
“Adjacent Cell 1” and “Adjacent Cell 2” are separated by web 24 such that
they are not in contact with Doolin’s top skin 32 or bottom skin 34. As
such, even if the Examiner correctly identifies the cell members of cores 36
and 38 as cell members having a hexagonal tubular structure, Doolin does
not disclose “each of the at least two adjacent cell members are in contact
with a substantially vertical wall of the planar or bent planar septum and at
least one of the upper skin and the lower skin,” as claimed (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 18 and claims 3, 4, 9, 13–15, 19, and 20 depending therefrom, as
anticipated by Doolin.
Rejections II – IV Obviousness over Doolin, Doolin and Hand, or
Doolin and Lee

Claims 5–8, 10–12, 16, and 17 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–10
(Claims App.). The Examiner’s rejections of claim 5 as unpatentable over
Doolin and Hand, of claims 6–8, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Doolin and
Appeal 2019-001462
Application 14/022,524

7
Lee, and of claims 10–12 as unpatentable over Doolin, are each based on the
same unsupported findings in Doolin discussed above with respect to claim
1. See Final Act. 6–10. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of
Hand and/or Lee in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of Doolin.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5–8, 10–12, 16, and 17 as
unpatentable over the various combinations of cited art.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 9,
13–15, and 18–20 as anticipated by Doolin.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 5 as
unpatentable over Doolin and Hand.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6–8, 16,
and 17 as unpatentable over Doolin and Lee.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10–12 as
unpatentable over Doolin.

REVERSED