Ex Parte Burd

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2017

13773908 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 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.
LBG212-07US 4076
EXAMINER
GOLDEN, CHINESSA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/773,908 02/22/2013
19148 7590 09/14/2017
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
101 South Tryon Street
Suite 2200
Charlotte, NC 28280-0002
Peter John Leslie Burd
09/14/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER JOHN LESLIE BURD
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
Technology Center 1700
Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, JULIA HEANEY, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 12—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter a new ground of rejection against claims 12—
19 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”), filed February 22,
2013, as amended, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated January 11,
2016, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed June 2, 2016, the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) dated September 12, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed November 4, 2016.
2 Appellant is the Applicant, B/E Aerospace, Inc., which according to the
Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to an acoustically and thermally
insulated galley shell. Spec. 17. Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
12. An improved aircraft monument, comprising:
an aircraft galley monument housing at least one
refrigeration unit; and
a protective panel forming at least a part of the aircraft
galley monument, the protective panel including:
an impact-resistant outer skin;
a carbon fiber composite panel;
a thermal insulation panel selectively disposed in contact
with a metallic cold bridge, the metallic cold bridge extending
across the thermal insulation panel, the thermal insulation panel
comprised of a vacuum insulation panel tiles; and
an insulating layer of open cell acoustic foam within the
panel.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 12—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Belanger3 in view of Gomes,4
Mueller,5 Bhatnagar,6 and Struve.7 Final Act. 2.
3 Belanger et al., US 2011/0248458 Al, published October 13, 2011
(“Belanger”).
4 Gomes et al., US 2011/0101160 Al, published May 5, 2011 (“Gomes”).
5 Mueller et al., US 2009/0304979 Al, published December 10, 2009
(“Mueller”).
6 Bhatnagar et al., US 2007/0238379 Al, published October 11, 2007
(“Bhatnagar”).
7 Struve et al., US 2005/0211838 Al, published September 29, 2005
(“Struve”).
2
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
B. Claims 18—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Belanger in view of Gomes, Mueller,
Bhatnagar, Struve, and further in view of Panned.8 Id. at
7.
OPINION
Examiner’s § 103(a) Rejections A andB
Appellant requests reversal of Rejections A and B. See generally
Appeal Br. Because the basis for our reversal of the Examiner’s Rejections
A and B—i.e., the lack of a galley monument in Bellanger—is relevant to all
claims, we limit our discussion to independent claim 12.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 (among others) as obvious over the
combination of Belanger, Gomes, Mueller, Bhatnagar, and Struve. Final
Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Belanger teaches an aircraft monument
having an aircraft galley monument with a protective panel. Id. The
Examiner acknowledges that the remaining claim elements are missing from
Belanger’s teachings, but additionally finds that: (1) Gomes teaches an
aircraft galley monument with a refrigeration unit, useful for keeping
contents such as medicine and food cold; (2) Mueller teaches a vacuum
insulation panel in contact with a metallic cold bridge, useful for providing
improved insulation properties; (3) Bhatnagar teaches a ballistic resistant
protective panel comprising an impact-resistant outer skin, useful for
providing “superior structural, impact, and ballistic performance;” and (4)
Struve teaches an insulating layer comprising an open cell acoustic foam,
allowing for easy use and installation. Id. at 3—5.
Shawn D. Pannell, US 5,876,540, issued March 2, 1999 (“Pannell”).
3
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
Appellant argues that Belanger, contrary to the Examiner’s findings,
does not teach an aircraft galley monument. Appeal Br. 5. Rather,
according to Appellant, Belanger “is directed to a galley cart and method of
securing a bumper or railing to the galley cart.” Id. Appellant stresses that
Belanger, the primary reference, “lacks all the features of the claimed
invention save ‘a protective panel.’” Id. And, “the only thing that the
primary reference is cited to teach is a ‘monument,’ which is improper
because Belanger does not teach a monument but rather a drink cart.” Id.
Thus, Appellant argues that the primary reference fails to teach any
limitation of the claim. Id.
We agree with Appellant that Belanger fails to teach an aircraft galley
monument but instead teaches a galley or beverage cart.9 While the
Specification does not expressly define the term galley monument, the term
monument is a term of art to describe modular fixed assemblies used to
configure and define aircraft cabin compartments—e.g., galley and lavatory
monuments. The Specification supports this understanding and identifies
aircraft monuments 100 and 200 of Figures 1—3 and explains that “Figure 1
illustrates an exterior view of a modular integrated galley comprising a
stand-alone beverage station 100 and a stand-alone food preparation station
200.” Spec. H13 and 16. And, as illustrated in Figures 2—3, the galley
monuments 100 and 200 have storage compartments 20 to stow drink carts.
See also id. 114 (“The structure 13 includes six beverage cart storage
compartments 20 that house beverage carts used to facilitate service to the
passengers.”). Thus, the drink cart of Belanger is not a galley monument as
9As discussed below in more detail, however, Gomes discloses an aircraft
galley monument 14. Gomes 126.
4
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
understood by the Specification. Accordingly, on this record, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 12—17 (Rejection A)
and claims 18—19 (Rejection B).
New Grounds of Rejection
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.05(b), we enter the following
new grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 12—17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gomes in view of Belanger,
Mueller, Bhatnagar and Struve.
II. Claims 18—19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gomes in view of Belanger,
Mueller, Bhatnagar, Struve, and further in view of
Pannell.
New Ground I:
We determine that the combination of Gomes, Belanger, Mueller,
Bhatnagar and Struve suggests all of the limitations that would render claims
12—17 obvious. We make the following findings of fact and conclusions
regarding the combination of Gomes, Belanger, Mueller, Bhatnagar and
Struve:
1. With regard to claim 1, Gomes teaches a galley monument.
Gomes 126. In particular, Gomes, referencing Figure 1, discloses that
“[t]he galley structures 10 and 12 may be positioned opposite to another
fixed-position galley structure 14 or other suitable aircraft monument (e.g.,
table, passenger seat, lavatory and the like) as may be desired by the aircraft
owner or operator.” Id. (emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
2. Gomes further teaches that the galley monument may contain
conventional galley equipment including a refrigerator. Id.
3. Gomes fails to teach a protective panel as part of the galley
monument that comprises an impact resistant outer skin, a carbon fiber
composite panel, a thermal insulation panel selectively disposed in contact
with a metallic cold bridge, the metallic cold bridge extending across the
thermal insulation panel, the thermal insulation panel comprised of a
vacuum insulation panel tiles; or an insulating layer of open cell acoustic
foam within the panel.
4. However, Belanger teaches a galley cart for use on a passenger
airplane that an exterior finishing layer or protective panel “to protect the
body 14 and improve its resistance to contacts with exterior objects while
giving an alternate aesthetic finish to the body 14.” Belanger || 92 and
115.
5. Mueller discloses an aircraft fairing with a thermal insulation
component 9 enclosed between a first cover layer 1 and a second cover layer
2. Mueller || 1, 10, 25, 27 and Figure 4. The thermal insulation component
9 comprises vacuum insulation panels (or VIPs). Id. 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13,
27, and 42-43. The aircraft side fairing which adjoins the aircraft skin 5
may be in the form of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic. Id. Tflf 25, 27, and
Figures 3 and 4. Thus, the component 9 (thermal insulation panel) is
sandwiched between the cover layer 1 and the aircraft skin 5 in the form of a
carbon fibre reinforced plastic (carbon fiber composite panel). Id. H 3, 5, 8,
12, 27, and Figure 4. The thermal insulation component 9 is disposed in
contact with a metallic layer which is a cold bridge because it is a poorly
insulated area. Id. H 1, 3, 5, 8, 12, 27, and Figures 3 and 4.
6
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
6. Bhatnagar discloses ballistic resistant composites for airplanes
that possesses superior structural, impact, and ballistic performance at a light
weight. Bhatnagar 12. The Bhatnagar composite comprises a central panel
10 positioned between a first panel 12 and a second panel 14. Id. 112,10,
11, 27, and Figure 1. The first and second panels, 12 and 14, comprise
fibrous layers formed from high strength fibers coated with a polymeric
composition. Id. 10, 11, 27, and 32. Thus, Bhatnagar teaches a
protective panel comprising an impact-resistant outer skin.
7. And, Struve teaches a multi-layered aircraft insulation with at
least one layer made from an open-celled foam that provides acoustic and
thermal insulation. Struve 1,2, and 7. Open-cell foams are “compression
fit into the fuselage” providing effective attachment and “superior close-out
of gaps.” Id. 8 and 59.
8. The skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the
protective panel taught by Belanger with the aircraft galley monument of
Gomes because Belanger teaches an exterior finishing panel (or a protective
panel) to improve resistance to contacts with exterior objects and to protect
the body. Belanger 1115. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in a similar way, using that technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 417 (2007).
9. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
at the time of invention to use the panel of Mueller in the aircraft galley
monument of Gomes in order to provide an improvement in insulation
properties (Mueller H 5 and 8), to use the ballistic (impact) resistant outer
7
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
skin of Bhatnagar in the protective panel of Belanger in order to provide
superior structural, impact and ballistic performance at a lightweight for
improved security and protection (Bhatnagar || 2 and 7); and to incorporate
the open cell acoustic foam of Struve into the protective panel of Belanger in
order to provide an insulation material which is easy to use, easy to install as
well as cost effective in terms of fabrication, installation and life cycle
(Struve 2, 6, 8, and 59).
10. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites “the
thermal insulation panel is sandwiched between the impact-resistant outer skin
and the carbon fiber composite panel.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x).
Component 9, i.e., the thermal insulation panel of Mueller, is sandwiched
between the cover layer 1 and the aircraft skin 5 in the form of a carbon fibre
reinforced plastic (carbon fiber composite panel). Id. H 3, 5, 8, 12, 27, and
Figure 4.
11. Claim 14 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites
“spacers in place of said thermal insulation panel in areas where there are no
cold bridges.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x). Mueller discloses that the
thermal insulation component 9 includes hollow chambers 12—14, i.e., spacers.
Mueller ^ 12, 24, and 25. These spacers are in places where component 9
would be and therefore in place of said thermal insulation panels and in areas
where there are no cold bridges. Id. Tflf 3, 5, 8, 12, 27, and Figure 4. It would
have been obvious at the time of the invention to include the spacers of Mueller
in the aircraft galley of Gomes in order to improve insulation properties and
provide for lightweight components of high strength. Id. Tflf 2, 5, and 8.
12. Claim 15 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites that
the “thickness of the thermal insulation panel is approximately twice a
thickness of the impact resistant outer skin.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x).
8
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
Mueller teaches that the thickness of the insulating layers can be decisively
reduced. Mueller 12. Mueller does not disclose a thickness of the thermal
insulation panel is approximately twice as thick as the impact-resistant outer
skin. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only
routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality. One of skill in the art
would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the thermal insulation
panel to approximately twice the thickness of the impact-resistant outer skin
in order to install the panel to a lesser depth and a spacious aircraft cabin can
be provided. Id. ^ 12 (“the thickness of the insulating layers can be
decisively reduced, and therefore the aircraft cabin can be installed in the
aircraft fuselage to a lesser depth and a spacious aircraft cabin can be
provided.” (emphasis added)).
13. Claim 16 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites “the
protective panel is applied in sections to the aircraft galley monument.” Appeal
Br. 11 (Claims App’x). Belanger discloses a protective panel applied in
sections of the beverage cart. Belanger ^ 27, 93, 105, 114, and 143.
14. Claim 17 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites “the
open cell acoustic foam has a thickness that is at least twice a thickness of the
carbon-fiber composite panel.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App’x). Mueller
teaches that the thickness of the insulating layers can be decisively reduced.
Mueller 112. And, Struve discloses that the open cell foam can be cut to a
desired size and shape to form a layer. Struve Tj 28. Neither Mueller nor
Struve disclose that the open celled acoustic foam has a thickness that is at
least twice a thickness of the carbon-fiber composite panel. However, where
in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering
the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the
9
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
art, absence a showing of criticality. One of skill in the art would have had
reason to modify the thickness of the open cell acoustic foam to at least
twice a thickness of the carbon-fiber composite panel in order to install the
panel to a lesser depth and a spacious aircraft cabin can be provided
(Mueller 112) and use the open cell acoustic foam of Struve et al. in order to
provide an insulation material which is easy to use, easy to install as well as
cost effective in terms of fabrication, installation and life cycle (Struve H 2
and 6).
New Ground II:
We determine that the combination of Gomes, Belanger, Mueller,
Bhatnagar, Struve (as applied to claim 12 above) and further in view of
Pannell suggests all of the limitations that would render claims 18 and 19
obvious. We make the following additional findings of fact regarding the
combination of Gomes, Belanger, Mueller, Bhatnagar, Struve and Pannell:
15. Claim 18 depends for claim 12 and additionally recites “anchor
pins [to] attach the impact resistant outer skin to carbon fiber composite panel.”
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App’x). Pannell discloses anchor pins for joining
carbon fiber composite materials in aerospace applications. Pannell col. 12,11.
38—42, col. 13,11. 3-8, and 15-18.
16. Claim 19 depends for claim 18 and additionally recites that the
“anchor pins are covered by an anchor pin cover.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims
App’x). The anchor pins of Pannell are covered by an anchor pin cover.
Pannell col. 16,11. 21—31 and Figure 10.
17. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of
invention to use the anchor pins of Pannell to attach the impact resistant outer
10
Appeal 2017-001503
Application 13/773,908
skin to the carbon fiber composite panel to withstand impact shock and prevent
peel failure. Panel col. 12,11. 6—10.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 12—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and enter new grounds of
rejection against claims 12—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
This decision contains a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
Examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to
the Examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
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).
REVERSED
11