Ex Parte Schibsbye

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

13445256 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

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.
13/445,256 04/12/2012 Karsten Schibsbye 2012P01581US 1109
22116 7590 03/27/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARSTEN S CHIB SB YE
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,2561
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter the “Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 6—16.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant states that the real party in interest is “Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft” (Appeal Brief filed on June 4, 2015, hereinafter “Appeal
Br.,” 3).
2 Appeal Br. 7—12; Reply Brief filed on November 25, 2015, hereinafter
“Reply Br.,” 3—6; Final Office Action (notice emailed on December 24,
2014), hereinafter “Final Act.,” 5—7; Examiner’s Answer (notice emailed
September 25, 2015), hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—3.
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,256
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for controlling a
resin flow in a closed mold cavity during a vacuum assisted resin transfer
molding (VARTM) process and to a system for carrying out such as a
process (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 11—2). The Appellant’s Figures
2 and 3 are illustrative and are reproduced as follows:
FIGS
Figure 2 above depicts a VARTM process and a system for carrying out
such a process at a first instant of time, wherein: via resin inlet 2, resin 12 is
sucked into a closed mold cavity 15 provided with composite fiber material
4 (shown in Fig. 1) by action of vacuum pressure to define a resin float front
14 (Spec. 11 8, 22, 30-31). Figure 3 above depicts the process and system at
a second instant of time, wherein: the float front 14 has reached one of more
2
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,256
of the resin outlets 3a or 3b and the resin has been drawn into respective
containers 5a or 5b; the amount of resin 12 in the containers is measured by
measuring means such as load cells, level sensors, and flow sensors; and
measured data 10a and 10b are provided to the pressure control system or
vacuum control system 9, which individually regulates the vacuum pressure
in each container 5a or 5b in order to keep a constant level of resin 12 in
container 5a or 5b {id. 23, 32—33).
Representative claim 6 is reproduced from page 13 of the Appeal
Brief (Claims Appendix; emphasis added), as follows:
6. An apparatus for controlling a resin flow in a closed
mould cavity during a vacuum assisted resin transfer
moulding process, comprising:
a plurality of containers each of which comprises
an inlet connectable to a resin outlet of the closed mould
cavity and an outlet which is connected to a vacuum
pump;
at least one means for measuring the resin fill level
in each container; and
at least one pressure controller operatively
connected to the at least one means for measuring and to
at least one of the plurality of containers, the at least one
pressure controller adjusts the pressure at each
connected container outlet based on the measured resin
fill, and controls the movement of a float front for
improved impregnation.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 6—16 under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Schibsbye3 in view of Eberth et al.4 (hereinafter
“Eberth”) (Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 2—3).
3 US 2010/0326584 Al, published December 30, 2010.
4 US 2010/0019405 Al, published January 28, 2010.
3
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,256
DISCUSSION
The Appellant relies on the same arguments for claims 6—16 (Appeal
Br. 7—12). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 6, which we select
as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). As provided by
this rule, claims 7—16 stand or fall with claim 6.
The Examiner finds that Schibsbye describes a VARTM apparatus
including every limitation recited in claim 6 except the reference “does not
appear to explicitly disclose a pressure controller, although all of the parts
exist for the operations of such a vacuum control, namely the pump (18),
sensors (42, 34 and 38), and computer” (Final Act. 5—6). The Examiner also
finds that Eberth discloses a VARTM in which a pressure sensor measures
the pressure within a resin trap, which is similar to Schibsbye’s container,
and sends the control signal to a pump to control pressure (id. at 6). Based
on these findings, the Examiner concludes that “it would have been prima
facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of
Schibsbye to include the pressure controller of Eberth, in order to regulate
the flow of resin through the mold and prevent excess resin from filling the
trap” (id. at 6).
The Appellant contends that “claim 6 . . . recites that the pressure
controller adjusts the pressure at each container, and controls movement of a
float front” and that “neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or
suggests controlling movement of a float front” (Appeal Br. 9).
According to the Appellant, Eberth’s relied-upon disclosure “merely
discloses a control unit that sends signals to a pump” and “[t]his simply is
not the same as the claimed pressure controller” (id. at 10). The Appellant
argues that “nothing in Eberth is concerned with controlling movement of a
4
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,256
float front” and that “nothing in Eberth discloses the control unit 317...
being attached to the container, as recited in the claims” {id.). Furthermore,
the Appellant argues that “a pump, controller, a pressure controller, and a
micro controller, are not only different in structure, but also in function” (id.
at 11).
The Appellant’s arguments fail to identify a reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We start our analysis by considering the claim limitations in dispute
(“at least one pressure controller adjusts the pressure at each connected
container outlet based on the measured resin fill, and controls the movement
of a float front for improved impregnation” as recited in claim 6). See, e.g.,
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[T]o properly compare
[a prior art reference] with the claims at issue, we must construe the term
‘computer’ to ascertain its scope and meaning.”).
The current Specification informs one skilled in the relevant art that
the “pressure controller” may be a “vacuum control system means” and
“may be configured for receiving data from the means for measuring the
resin fill level in each container and for providing data to the controller for
adjusting the pressure of the applied vacuum at each container outlet” (Spec.
16—17). The “pressure controller” or “vacuum control system means” is
described as being a controller 9, as shown in the Appellant’s Figures 2 and
3 above, for controlling vacuum pump 8 (id. || 27—28).
5
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,256
Schibsbye’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
Schibsbye Figure 1 above depicts a VARTM system in which a mold 1 (for
manufacturing a fiber-reinforced, wind turbine blade shell part) includes
separate mold cavity parts 8—13, which are individually evacuated by several
apparatuses 30, each comprising a first inlet 14, a first outlet 16, a sealed
container 31, and a vacuum source (Tflf 27, 31). Schibsbye further teaches
that each container 31 is provided with a pressure transducer 42 on its lid 34,
thereby making it possible to monitor the vacuum level (i.e., the pressure) in
the interior 58 of the sealed container 31 and, consequently, the vacuum
6
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,256
level of the mold cavity or the individual mold cavity sections 8—13 (136;
Figs. 3, 4). In addition, Schibsbye teaches (139) (italics added):
The flow sensor 38, the pressure transducer 42 and the
level transducer 44 are connected via wires 46, 48, 50 to a
connecter 52, which for instance can be connected to a computer
for monitoring the gas flow, the vacuum level, and the amount of
resin spilled in to the sealed container 31, respectively.
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have drawn a
reasonable inference from these disclosures that, by monitoring and
controlling various parameters such as the vacuum levels and the amount of
resin spilled into the sealed container 31, Schibsbye’s computer (i.e.,
controller) is operatively connected to the pressure transducers 42 disposed
on the containers and is configured to control the resin’s “float front” in the
mold cavity in a manner consistent with claim 6 and the description in the
current Specification (Spec. Tflf 9—12, 32—33).
In addition, we discern no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Eberth.
Specifically, Eberth’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:
300
\
A
7
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,256
Eberth’s Figure 3 above depicts a resin transfer molding (RTM) system 300
comprising, inter alia, reinforced fibers 209 placed in a mold cavity 203 into
which resin is sucked by action of vacuum 52—53). According to Eberth,
control unit 317, which is coupled to a resin trap 205 by a first
communication line 318 and to a pump 316 by a second communication line
319, controls and/or regulates pressure impinging on the resin trap 205, thus
controlling the resin flow {id. 1 53).
Considered collectively, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that
a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
include a pressure controller 317 as shown in Eberth in Schibsbye’s
apparatus or system in order to control pressure at the container outlet and
thus regulate the resin’s flow into the mold (i.e., control the float front). As
stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, “when a patent ‘simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag. Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,
282 (1976)).
We find no persuasive merit in the Appellant’s bare assertion that the
“pressure controller” recited in claim 6 is different in structure from the
controllers disclosed or suggested in the prior art references. In this regard,
the Appellant fails to direct us to any description in the Specification, or
other persuasive evidence, that would effectively differentiate the specified
“pressure controller” from the controllers described in the references.
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection.
8
Appeal 2016-001921
Application 13/445,256
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 6—16 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
9