Ex Parte Boy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14254894 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/254,894 04/17/2014
63759 7590 07/02/2018
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ralph W. Boy
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10-1036-US-CNT 4459
EXAMINER
LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RALPH W. BOY, NEAL HAROLD, and JAY B. BIEDERMAN
Appeal 2017-011627
Application 14/254,894
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 21-24 and 26-40, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 1-20 and 25 were cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
App. Br. 2. The Boeing Company is the Applicant for the instant patent
application. See Bib. Data Sheet.
Appeal 2017-011627
Application 14/254,894
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention analyzes an airframe's electrical loading. See
generally Abstract; Spec. ,r 4.
Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative:
21. An aircraft electrical load life-cycle management
and analysis system comprising:
a database module operable to store electrical system
configuration data and electrical system requirements of an
electrical system of an aircraft, wherein the electrical system
configuration data comprises at least two of: electrical system
organization data, electrical system hierarchy data, electrical
system connection data, circuit data, and electrical system
structure data;
an electrical system analysis module operable to
determine electrical system performance characteristics of the
electrical system as a function of the electrical system
configuration data, wherein the electrical system performance
characteristics comprise at least one of: a load distribution
analysis and a flight phase load analysis; and
an electrical system configuration management module
operable to:
compare the electrical system performance characteristics
to the electrical system requirements; and
manage at least one change to the electrical system
configuration data based on the comparison to enable optimal
performance of the electrical system of the aircraft.
2
Appeal 2017-011627
Application 14/254,894
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21-24, 26-30, and 32--40 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as being anticipated byWeale (US 2010/0231042 Al,
published Sept. 16, 2010). Final Act. 4--16. 2,3
The Examiner rejected claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Weale and Brady, Jr. (US 2006/0174285 Al, published
Aug. 3, 2006). Final Act. 16-17.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that W eale discloses every recited element of
independent claim 21 including, among other things, (1) determining
electrical system performance characteristics that comprise at least one of a
load distribution analysis and a flight phase load analysis, and (2) managing
a change to electrical system configuration data based on a comparison
between electrical system requirements and the electrical system
performance characteristics to enable optimal performance of an aircraft's
electrical system. Final Act. 6-7.
Appellants argue, among other things, that W eale does not compare
electrical system performance characteristics to electrical system
requirements, as claimed. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3--4. According to
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed Oct. 27,
2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 24, 2017 ("App. Br.");
(3) the Examiner's Answer mailed July 27, 2017 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply
Brief filed Sept. 21, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
3 In the header for this rejection, the Examiner refers to the rejection of
claims "21-24, 26-30, 32-10" (Final Act. 4), but claims 21-24, 26-30, and
32--40 appear in the body of the rejection (id. at 4--16). We treat the
Examiner's error as typographical or ministerial in nature.
3
Appeal 2017-011627
Application 14/254,894
Appellants, W eale does not mention a load distribution analysis or a flight
phase load analysis. Reply Br. 3. Appellants add that Weale does not
manage a change to electrical system configuration data based on the
comparison to enable optimal performance of an aircraft's electrical system.
App. Br. 8-9. According to Appellants, Weale's check logic only allows an
instruction to be carried out if the instruction is valid and electrically safe.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5.
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding
that W eale ( 1) determines electrical system performance characteristics
comprising at least one of a load distribution analysis and a flight phase load
analysis, (2) compares the electrical system performance characteristics to
electrical system requirements, and (3) manages at least one change to
electrical system configuration data based on the comparison to enable
optimal performance of an aircraft's electrical system?
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing recited terms of the disputed limitation of
claim 21 which include "electrical performance characteristics," "load
distribution analysis," "flight phase load analysis," "electrical system
requirements," and "electrical system configuration data." The Specification
does not define these recited terms, unlike other terms whose concrete
4
Appeal 2017-011627
Application 14/254,894
definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 123
( defining, among other terms, "connected" and "coupled").
The Specification does disclose the term "electrical system
configuration data may comprise,for example but without limitation, part
location data, electrical system organization data, electrical system hierarchy
data, .... " Id. ,r 61 (emphasis added). The term "electrical system
requirements may comprise authoritative requirements, such as but without
limitation, minimum rated electrical capacities, maximum load levels, and
the like." Id. ,r 67 (emphasis added). The term "electrical system
performance characteristic may comprise,for example but without
limitation, electrical system management data that may comprise, among
other types of management information, a load on an AC bus, a load
distribution analysis, .... " Id. ,r 70 ( emphasis added). Our emphases
underscore that the descriptions of the recited terms are replete with
exemplary and non-limiting language. See, e.g., id. ,r,r 45, 47-53, 57, 61-72,
74--97. Nevertheless, the Specification informs our understanding of the
recited terms.
Given these exemplary and non-limiting descriptions, we see no error
in the Examiner's reliance on Weale's instructions from a central controller
on what configuration a bus controller should adopt for disclosing the recited
terms "load distribution analysis" and "flight phase load analysis." Final
Act. 6-7 (citing Weale ,r,r 32-33); Ans. 3--4 (additionally citing Weale ,r
34). 4 Weale's Figure 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
4 Although the Examiner's Answer ( consisting of six pages) is not paginated
(unlike the Final Action), we nonetheless cite specific pages of the Answer
in the order that they appear in the record.
5
Appeal 2017-011627
Application 14/254,894
102
i PO\