Robert Blackburn et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 27, 2019

14824462 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
14/824,462 08/12/2015 Robert Blackburn 14001S-US-NP 3025
8015 7590 11/27/2019
CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC.
1937 WEST MAIN STREET
STAMFORD, CT 06902
EXAMINER
PIZIALI, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2019 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):
Cheryle.Telesco@solvay.com
StamfordPatent@solvay.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT BLACKBURN and SAMUEL JESTYN HILL
Appeal 2019-001745
Application 14/824,462
Technology Center 1700
BEFORE ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, 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 1–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cytec Industries
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001745
Application 14/824,462

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A woven fabric for composite reinforcement comprising:

unidirectional fiber tows arranged parallel to each other in a sheet-like
formation; and

strips of nonwoven fibers interlaced with the unidirectional fiber tows
in a weaving pattern,

wherein the unidirectional fiber tows are not attached to another layer,
and each unidirectional fiber tow is comprised of a plurality of
continuous fiber filaments, and

wherein each strip of nonwoven fibers is a self-supporting, single-
layer material, which is not attached to another layer of fibers, and is
comprised of randomly arranged and/or randomly oriented fibers.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lin et al. US 2010/0024489 A1 February 4, 2010
Beraud et al. US 2012/0237707 A1 September 20, 2012

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Appeal 2019-001745
Application 14/824,462

3
2. Claims 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin in view of Beraud.
OPINION
Our Decision addresses the claims separately to the extent they are so
argued by Appellants. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports Appellant’s position in the record with regard to the prior art
rejection (our comments on the indefiniteness rejection are detailed infra).
We thus reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims for
the reasons provided by Appellant in the record, and add the following for
emphasis. We can focus on the reference of Beraud (because this is the
reference used by the Examiner regarding the claim limitation at issue) in
making our determinations herein.

Rejection 1
We first note that Appellant does not appeal this rejection as it
pertains to claims 6 and 8 (Appeal Br. 3), so we summarily affirm this
rejection with regard to claims 6 and 8.
With regard to claim 1, it is the Examiner’s position that the phrase
“sheet-like formation” renders the claims indefinite, stating that the intended
scope of the claim is unclear, and the claim is subjective rather than
definitive. Ans. 3. However, we agree with Appellant that this phrase is
definite for the reasons given on pages 3–4 of the Appeal Brief. We add that
Appeal 2019-001745
Application 14/824,462

4
page 5 of the Specification describes what is meant by this phrase and refers
to Figure 6 in this regard.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1 with regard to claims 1–
5, 7, and 9–17, but affirm with regard to claims 6 and 8.

Rejection 2
At issue in this rejection is whether the Examiner’s interpretation of
the limitation “wherein the unidirectional fiber tows are not attached to
another layer, and each unidirectional fiber tow is comprised of a plurality of
continuous fiber filaments” recited in claim 1 is proper. It is the Examiner’s
position that claimed fiber tows encompass Beraud’s nonwoven veils 2a and
2b (shown in the annotated depiction of Beraud’s Figure 1, below). Ans. 8–
9.

It is Appellant’s position that nonwoven veils 2a and 2b are not a part
of the unidirectional fiber tow (unidirectional filaments as labeled in the
figure above) because the claim recites the unidirectional fiber tow as being
a plurality of continuous fiber filaments that are not attached to another
layer. We are persuaded by such argument. Appellant’s Figure 5 (below)
further supports this claim interpretation.
Appeal 2019-001745
Application 14/824,462

5

Therefore, we agree with Appellant that because the claim, as
properly interpreted, excludes the tow from being attached to another layer,
Beraud does not teach this claim limitation. We thus reverse Rejection 2.
CONCLUSION
Rejection 1 is reversed, except for claims 6 and 8.
Rejection 2 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17 112(b)
Indefiniteness
6 and 8

1–5, 7,
and 9–17

1–17 103 Lin, Beraud 1–17
Overall
Outcome
6 and 8 1–5, 7,
and 9–17
Appeal 2019-001745
Application 14/824,462

6

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART