The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2021

2020006477 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021)

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.
15/369,857 12/05/2016 Joshua M. Montgomery 06-0759-US-DIV 8651
63759 7590 10/04/2021
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
VAN SELL, NATHAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2021 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JOSHUA M. MONTGOMERY,
SALVATORE L. LIGUORE,
and TUAN Q. CAO
__________

Appeal 2020-006477
Application 15/369,857
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 27–47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. Appeal Brief dated
February 18, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), at 2.
Appeal 2020-006477
Application 15/369,857

2

Representative claims 27 and 34 are reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are emphasized.
27. A method of making a damped composite laminate structure,
comprising the steps of:
(A) introducing a reinforcement medium comprising a first
viscoelastic material having a first glass transition temperature into a
layer of damping material comprising a second viscoelastic material
having a second glass transition temperature different than the first
glass transition temperature;
(B) placing the layer of damping material between first and
second layers of fiber reinforced resin material; and,
(C) co-curing the layer of damping material with the first and
second layers.
Appeal Br. 12.
34. The method of claim 27, wherein step (A) includes:
providing a web of viscoelastic material as the reinforcement
medium having the first glass transition temperature, and
impregnating the web with the second viscoelastic material
having the second glass transition temperature, where the second glass
transition temperature is lower than the first glass transition
temperature.
Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 27–29, 31–34, 38–41, and 44–46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunter;2 and
(2) claims 30, 35–37, 42, 43, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hunter in view of Deckard.3

2 US 6,764,754 B1, to Hunter et al., issued July 20, 2004 (“Hunter”).
3 US 2003/0094734 A1, to Deckard et al., published May 22, 2003 (“Deckard”).
Appeal 2020-006477
Application 15/369,857

3

B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Hunter discloses a damped composite laminate
structure comprising structural laminae 20 and damping laminae 10. Final
Act. 2.4 Hunter’s Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates the disclosed
laminate structure.

Hunter’s Figure 3 illustrates a laminate having multiple
structural lamina and multiple damping lamina
in accordance with an embodiment of Hunter’s invention.

The Examiner finds the damping laminae comprises reinforcing fibers such
as carbon or glass fibers (corresponding to the claimed reinforcement medium
comprising a first viscoelastic material having a first glass transition temperature)
embedded in a resin material such as a thermoset resin (corresponding to the
claimed second viscoelastic material having a second glass transition temperature).
Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4, 10–11;5 see also Hunter, col. 4, ll. 32–33 (disclosing that
each ply of the laminate comprises fiber embedded within a resin material).
Relying on column 4, lines 23–67 and column 5, lines 25–67 of Hunter, the

4 Final Office Action dated October 17, 2019.
5 Examiner’s Answer dated April 16, 2020.
Appeal 2020-006477
Application 15/369,857

4

Examiner finds that the glass transition temperature of the resin material is not only
different from the glass transition temperature of the reinforcing fibers but is also
lower than the glass transition temperature of the reinforcing fibers. Final Act. 10.
The Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s finding that
the reinforcing fibers in Hunter’s damping laminae comprise a first viscoelastic
material and the resin material in Hunter’s damping lamina comprises a second
viscoelastic material. Rather, the Appellant summarily argues that “Hunter does
not teach that within the layer of damping material, one material has a glass
transition temperature different from a glass transition temperature of [a] second
material” as recited in claim 27. Appeal Br. 7 (original emphasis omitted).
Similarly, the Appellant argues that Hunter does not disclose that the glass
transition temperature of the second material (i.e., the resin material) is lower than
the glass transition temperature of the first material (i.e., the reinforcing fibers) as
recited in claim 34. Appeal Br. 8.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner finds that the resin material of the damping laminae may be a thermoset
resin. Final Act. 4. Hunter discloses that the glass transition temperature of the
thermoset resin in the damping laminae may be lowered with a plasticizing
compound or a rubber compound. Hunter, col. 5, ll. 31–37, 62–67; see also
Hunter, col. 5, ll. 50–53 (disclosing that a commercial resin having a depressed
glass transition temperature may also be used in the damping laminae). Hunter
discloses that the glass transition temperature of the thermoset resin may be
lowered to “well below room temperature, for instance 0°F.” Hunter, col. 5, ll. 44–
49. Hunter does not disclose that the glass transition temperature of the reinforcing
fibers may be similarly lowered. Rather, Hunter discloses that the reinforcing
Appeal 2020-006477
Application 15/369,857

5

fibers have a high-strength and are selected to meet the load requirements of a
particular situation. Hunter, col. 4, ll. 32–36.
Thus, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, we find that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood from the teachings of Hunter that the glass
transition temperature of the resin material in the damping laminae may not only
be different from but may also be lower than the glass transition temperature of the
reinforcing fibers in the damping laminae as recited in claims 27 and 34,
respectively. Significantly, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence to the
contrary.6
Based on the foregoing, we find that a preponderance of the evidence of
record supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness in the rejection of
claims 27 and 34. For that reason, the obviousness rejection of claims 27 and 34
based on Hunter is sustained.
The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of the remaining claims on appeal. See Appeal Br. 9 (arguing
that “the arguments with respect to the rejection of independent claim 27 apply to
[independent] claim 38”); id. (arguing that “similarly to claim 34, claim 46 also
further distinguishes the relationship between the first and second glass transition
temperatures”); id. (arguing that Deckard does not cure the deficiencies of Hunter).
Therefore, the obviousness rejections of claims 28–33 and 35–47 also are
sustained.

6 Notably, the instant Application and Hunter appear to name a common inventor,
Salvatore L. Liguore, and are commonly assigned to The Boeing Company.
Therefore, it would appear that the Appellant is in the best position to present
evidence demonstrating that the Examiner’s factual findings are erroneous.
Appeal 2020-006477
Application 15/369,857

6

C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
27–29, 31–
34, 38–41,
44–46
103(a) Hunter 27–29, 31–
34, 38–41,
44–46

30, 35–37,
42, 43, 47
103(a) Hunter, Deckard 30, 35–37,
42, 43, 47

Overall
Outcome
27–47

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