Thomas Tsotsis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2022

2021001359 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2022)

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. 12/424,021 04/15/2009 Thomas K. Tsotsis 08-1054-US-NP 9721 155028 7590 03/11/2022 Vivacqua Crane 3101 East Eisenhower Parkway ANN ARBOR, MI 48108 EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2022 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): BoeingUSPTO@vivacqualaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS K. TSOTSIS Appeal 2021-001359 Application 12/424,021 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the April 22, 2020 Non-Final rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 10-16, 26-27, 32 and 35-39. Claim 33 is withdrawn from consideration. 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 The Boeing Company. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2021-001359 Application 12/424,021 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to laminate structures containing a metal- coated fabric as part of a fiber-metal laminate that can be used to impart strength to composite structures, such as aircraft skin panels. (Spec. 5.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A composite structure comprising: a laminate, wherein the laminate comprises: a first non-reinforced layer comprising a polymeric fiber that is coated with a metal coating to create a metal-coated fabric; a second fiber-reinforced layer of polymeric composite comprising a polymeric resin and a first set of parallel reinforcing fibers embedded in the polymeric resin, wherein the reinforcing fibers are not metal- coated; and a third fiber-reinforced layer of polymeric composite comprising the polymeric resin and a second set of parallel reinforcing fibers embedded in the polymeric resin that are not metal-coated, wherein the first non-reinforced layer is bonded to the second fiber reinforced layer and the third fiber-reinforced layer by an adhesive. Appeal Br. 14, Claim Appendix. . REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 10-16, 26-27, 32 and 35-39 are under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hales (WO 2008/150716 A1 published Dec. 11, 2008) to or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hales or, in the alternative, obvious over Hales and further in view of Lambing (US 5,160,771 issued Nov. 3, 1992), Pettit (US 5,227,216 issued Appeal 2021-001359 Application 12/424,021 3 Jul. 13, 1993), Ebneth (US 4,522,889 issued Jun. 11, 1985), Cohen (US 5,599,585 issued Feb. 4, 1997), Morin (US. 4,624,751 issued Nov. 25, 1986), and/or Patz (US 4,234,648 issued Nov. 18, 1980). OPINION The dispositive issue regarding the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections based on Hales is whether the Examiner’s finding that Hales discloses or teaches “wherein the first non-reinforced layer is bonded to the second fiber-reinforced layer and the third fiber-reinforced layer by an adhesive” as required by independent claim 1 and “wherein the reinforcing fibers are not metal-coated, and wherein at least one of the metal-coated fabric layers are bonded to either the first ply or the second ply by an adhesive” as required by independent claim 13 is supported by evidence. (Non-Final Act. 3-7.) Because the Examiner’s findings are not sufficiently supported, we do not sustain the anticipation and obviousness rejections based Hales. We begin our analysis with claim construction. It is well settled that, during examination, the PTO must interpret terms in a claim using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Application Figure 2 depicting a composite structure is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-001359 Application 12/424,021 4 Application Figure 2 depicts alternating layers of metal-coated fabric 12 bonded directly to the surface of a fiber reinforced composite layers 14. The Specification further states: Although not shown in FIG. 2, the adjacent layers of fiber-reinforced polymeric material 14 and metal-coated fabric layers 12 may be bonded with a suitable adhesive layer, including, for example, a thermosetting epoxy resin or other suitable adhesive. (Spec. ¶ 18) (emphasis added) Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the first non-reinforced layer is bonded to the second fiber-reinforced layer and the third fiber-reinforced layer by an adhesive,” and independent claim 13 recites “wherein the reinforcing fibers are not metal-coated, and wherein at least one of the metal-coated fabric layers are bonded to either the first ply or the second ply by an adhesive” In light of the Specification, we interpret “by an adhesive” as an adhesive layer. This is consistent with the discussion appearing in paragraph 18 of the Specification. The Examiner finds Hales discloses the claimed adhesive because the polymeric matrix resin of Hales is the same material used by the claimed invention. The Examiner specifically states: Appeal 2021-001359 Application 12/424,021 5 Regarding the first layer being bonded to the second and third layers “by an adhesive,” paragraph [0029] of Hales states (emphasis added): The curing process changes the resin to a polymeric material that bonds to the layered structure and forms a complex matrix that will be contiguous throughout the layered structure ... The resulting metal/fiber laminate will have superior mechanical properties since the process of metal coating forms a good bond with the fibers and the polymer matrix couples the layers of the layered structure in a complex fashion. Therefore, it is clear that the polymer of Hales both (adhesively) bonds the layers together AND that the polymer (mechanically) couples the layers together. Plus, paragraph [0030] of Hales states (emphasis added): A cured polymer matrix 70 fills the porosity of the layered structure and bonds well to the rough surface defined by the metal coatings 34 and 44. Therefore, it is clear that the cured polymer of Hales is an adhesive that bonds surfaces together. Further, paragraph [0032] of Hales states (emphasis added): In this way, a stack of the prepreg sheets could simply be heated to bring about fusion of the various layers in order to form a metal/fiber laminate. Therefore, it is clear that the heated ( cured) polymer of Hales is an adhesive. Further still, the current specification disc” "thermosetting epoxy resin” [0018]. Similarly, Hales discloses that the curable (thermosetting) resin material infused throughout the layered structure may be (thermosetting) epoxy resin [0021]. Therefore, Hales discloses the claimed adhesive because the polymeric matrix resin of Hales is the same material used by the Appellant as an adhesive. (Non-Final Act. 4.) (emphasis original) All of the Examiner’s prior art rejections are premised on Hales teaching the adhesive binding the reinforcing layers. However, Hales teaches the various layers are bonded together utilizing a cured resin. Hales specifically states: The resin-permeated layered structure is then cured where the curing details would be dictated by the resin as would be well understood in the art. The curing process changes the resin to a polymeric material that bonds to the layered structure and forms a complex matrix that will be contiguous throughout the layered structure. (Hales ¶ 29.) Appeal 2021-001359 Application 12/424,021 6 The Examiner has not identified other portions of Hales that suggest utilizing an adhesive layer. Accordingly, the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence establishing Hales describes the adhesive (layer) required by the claimed invention. We do not sustain the anticipation or, in the alternative, obviousness rejection over Hales for the reasons set forth above. Because the Examiner relies on the same factual determinations from Hales made in the anticipation/obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejection over Hales in combination with Lambing, Pettit, Ebneth, Cohen, Morin, and Patz because these additional references were not cited to establish the obviousness of utilizing an adhesive layer. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s prior art rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6-8, 10- 16, 26-27, 32, 35-39 102(a)/ 102(e) Hales 1, 6-8, 10- 16, 26-27, 32, 35-39 1, 6-8, 10- 16, 26-27, 32, 35-39 103(a) Hales 1, 6-8, 10- 16, 26-27, 32, 35-39 1, 6-8, 10- 16, 26-27, 32, 35-39 103(a) Hales, Lambing, Pettit, Ebneth, Cohen, Morin, Patz 1, 6-8, 10- 16, 26-27, 32, 35-39 Appeal 2021-001359 Application 12/424,021 7 Overall Outcome 1, 6-8, 10- 16, 26-27, 32, 35-39 REVERSED