YACHIYO INDUSTRY CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2022000455 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 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. 15/306,167 10/24/2016 Yoshihiro WATANABE IIP-317-A 1076 21828 7590 03/22/2022 CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES PC 22960 VENTURE DRIVE SUITE 100 NOVI, MI 48375 EXAMINER STEVENS, ALLAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3736 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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): cbalaw@gmail.com wblackman@ameritech.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YOSHIHIRO WATANABE and KAZUHIRO NAKAMURA Appeal 2022-000455 Application 15/306,167 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 11-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The Specification’s disclosure “relates to a pressure vessel for storing gas or liquid and a method for winding a filament.” Spec. ¶1. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 and identifies Yachiyo Industry Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2022-000455 Application 15/306,167 2 The Claims Claims 1, 2, and 11-16 are rejected. Final Act. 1. The only other pending claims, namely claims 3 and 4, have been withdrawn from consideration. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below. 1. A pressure vessel comprising: a liner having a hollow portion; and a reinforcing layer that covers a circumference of the liner, wherein: the reinforcing layer includes layers of bands wound around the liner, each of the bands includes a plurality of tows collected together and resin which impregnates the tows, the plurality of tows of each band are aligned in a lateral direction of the band, each of the tows includes a bundle of reinforced fibers and at least one tow at an end in a width direction of each band has a smaller number of the reinforced fibers than other tows of the band, a lap portion is defined in each layer of the reinforcing layer where the ends in the width direction of adjacent windings of the bands are superposed on each other such that each lap portion includes at least one of the tows of each of the superposed adjacent windings of the bands disposed to overlap with each other; and at least one of the ends of the adjacent windings of the bands in each of the lap portions is thinner than other portions of the bands. Appeal Br. 24. Appeal 2022-000455 Application 15/306,167 3 The Examiner’s Rejections The rejections before us are pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 and as follows: 1. claims 1 and 11-16 as unpatentable over US 3,331,722, issued July 18, 1967 (“Ponemon) US 2003/0019874 A1, published January 30, 2003 (“Wright”) (Final Act. 7);2 and 2. claim 2 as unpatentable over Ponemon, Wright, and US 2014/0134378 A1, published May 15, 2014 (“Downs”) (id. at 15). DISCUSSION Rejection 1 Ponemon’s pressure vessel is reinforced by helically wrapping bands of resin-impregnated filaments/fibers around a hollow mandrel/liner. Ponemon 1:66-10, 2:57-59, 2:72-3:1, 3:26-30, 4:18-22, Figs. 3-8. Wright is also directed to “reinforcing pressure vessels” (Wright ¶4) and does so, in part, in the same general manner as Ponemon, disclosing that “Vessel 100 includes a vessel body 102 having an outer surface 103 formed of helically wound tow” (id. ¶38). More specifically, “Vessel 102, excluding the end domes 106 and 112, is constructed of a filament wound and resin impregnated composite material,” and “it is preferred that the filament or tow is helically wound in a conventional manner.” Id. ¶39 (emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 14 (“Wright’s pressure vessel (100; 1000) also includes a conventional reinforcing layer (103) constructed of filament wound and resin impregnated composite material disposed in many 2 Although the heading of the rejection does not list claim 11 as rejected (see Final Act. 7), we understand that claim 11 nonetheless stands rejected (see id. at 11; see also Ans. 5). Appeal 2022-000455 Application 15/306,167 4 overlapping layers, where successive layers may change the angular orientation of their fibers.” (citing Wright ¶39, Figs. 1-2)). For the surface of the vessel in the area of the domes, or at least the double curved surfaces leading to the domes, Wright discloses applying layers of “gore pieces.” Wright ¶55. The gore pieces are laid parallel to one another and overlapping each other to form “a flattened ‘Z’ configuration.” Id. ¶55, Fig. 7. Wright further teaches a spherical embodiment that lacks a cylindrical body. Id. ¶64, Fig. 10. The Examiner ultimately relies on the spherical embodiment of Figure 10, presumably because the entire vessel is covered by the gore pieces and the flattened “Z” configuration they form. Final Act. 8. In view of the prior art teachings, the Examiner concluded: It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the reinforcing layer of Ponemon to have multiple layers of bands, as taught by Wright, and to have modified the bands of Ponemon to have the flattened “z” configuration and overlap with adjacent bands, as taught by Wright, in order to provide additional strength to the pressure vessel in order to accommodate additional pressure and to provide the bands with a uniform thickness. Id. Appellant presents multiple arguments against this rejection. Appeal Br. 14-19. Particularly persuasive is Appellant’s argument that: given the intentional and indisputable structural differences between Ponemon’s reinforcing layer of elongate bands of filaments (103) helically wound under tension around the pressure vessel mandrel (16) and Wright’s comparatively short gore pieces (128-132; 1010-1012) that are merely laid together by hand or machine without being wound under tension around a pressure vessel or vernier motor, the references provide no motivation or direction as to why or how Ponemon’s reinforcing Appeal 2022-000455 Application 15/306,167 5 layer should or could be predictably modified in light of select aspects of Wright’s gore body dome reinforcements. Id. at 18-19. We determine the rejection lacks sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The rejection does not provide a satisfactory reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Wright’s teachings regarding shaping, and laying down, adjacent gore pieces to form a flattened “Z” configuration in the domed sections of a vessel (or an entire vessel in the case of a spherical vessel) and applied such teachings in the context of helically wound bands of fibers that repeatedly crisscross each other. Notably, Wright, which also employs a separate reinforcing layer comprised of helically wound bands of fibers, does not teach forming a flattened “Z” configuration for such helically wound bands. Further, even assuming there were a reason to have made the proposed modification, the rejection does not establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in forming a flattened “Z” configuration with the helically wound, and thus crisscrossing, bands of Ponemon. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11-16. Appeal 2022-000455 Application 15/306,167 6 Rejection 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1. The rejection of claim 2 additionally relies on Downs but not in a manner that could cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 15-16. Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of claim 2. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 11-16 103 Ponemon, Wright 1, 11-16 2 103 Ponemon, Wright, Down 2 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 11-16 REVERSED