Ex Parte McIntosh

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14620536 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/620,536 02/12/2015 Darren Carl McIntosh
107112 7590 07/02/2019
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
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.
14-2383-US-NP (800-0069) 9908
EXAMINER
WANG, MICHAEL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 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):
docket@splglaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARREN CARL MCINTOSH
Appeal2018-004392 1
Application 14/620,536
Technology Center 3600
Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-10, and 12-20. We have
jurisdiction under§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 We reference herein the Specification filed February 12, 2015 ("Spec."),
Final Office Action mailed August 4, 201 7 ("Final Act."), Appeal Brief filed
October 26, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed
February 6, 2018 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, The Boeing Company, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 1 7, and 19 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An aft rest area assembly within an aft section of an
internal cabin of an aircraft, the aft rest area assembly
compnsmg:
a lavatory section including: (a) at least one lavatory,
wherein the lavatory section includes first and second lavatories
separated by a dividing wall, wherein the dividing wall is
coaxially aligned with an aisle of the internal cabin, and (b) an
egress flow director that forwardly extends into an unused
portion of one or more egress paths of the internal cabin, and
wherein the one or more egress paths connect to at least one
emergency exit door.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
I. claims 1---6, 10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Saint-Jalmes3 and Moje4; 5
3 US 2009/0261200 Al, published Oct. 22, 2009.
4 US 2014/0339363 Al, published Nov. 20, 2014.
5 The heading of the rejection lists claims 7, 9, and 11, but the Examiner
does not otherwise address these claims in the body of the rejection.
Final Act. 2-6. Claims 7 and 11 have been canceled (id. at 2), and the
Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on a similar
combination of prior art that includes an additional reference (id. at 7).
Accordingly, we understand this rejection does not include claims 7, 9, and
11, and we treat the inclusion of these claims in the heading as a harmless
oversight.
2
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
II. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes,
Moje, and Swain6;
III. claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes,
Moje, and Schliwa 7;
IV. claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Saint-Jalmes, Moje, and Savian8;
V. claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes,
Moje, Savian, and Schliwa; and
VI. claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes,
Moje, Savian, Schliwa, and Swain.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, and 12-14
Appellant contends the Examiner's proposed combination of
Saint-Jalmes and Moje would not result in the limitation of independent
claim 1 reciting "the dividing wall is coaxially aligned with an aisle of the
internal cabin." Appeal Br. 12-14. The argument is not persuasive.
Figures 1 and 2 of Moje depict a layout within region 100 located at
the intersection of door aisle 102 and main aisle 108 in an aircraft cabin.
Region 100 includes monument 10 with two lavatories 12, arranged
side-by-side, facing toward the front part of the cabin. Moje ,r,r 37-38,
Figs. 1-2. Forward-facing lavatories 12 are enclosed by side-wall regions
6 US 2014/0123571 Al, published May 8, 2014.
7 US 2013/0001359 Al, published Jan. 3, 2013.
8 US 2014/0196206 Al, published July 17, 2014.
3
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
20a, 20b, 20c, and are separated by a dividing wall that extends from
side-wall regions 20b to the vertex formed by side-wall regions 20c. Id.
,r,r 40-45, Figs. 1-3.
As Appellant points out, Moje's Figure 2 does not depict
monument 10 centered in the cabin such that the dividing wall between
forwardly-facing lavatories 12 is coaxially aligned with aisle 108.
Appeal Br. 12-14. Nevertheless, Moje teaches:
The aircraft monument 10 is arranged in the aircraft region 100
centrically in door aisle 102 which extends between a first and a
second aircraft door 104, 106 and substantially perpendicular to
a main aisle 108 running along a longitudinal axis L of the
aircraft cabin .... The aircraft monument 10 arranged centrically
in the door aisle 102 is consequently arranged between the front
and the rear part of the aircraft cabin, with one pair of the
[lavatories] 12 facing towards the front part of the aircraft cabin.
The vertices of the tapering base areas of the [lavatories] 12 are
consequently arranged substantially along the longitudinal axis L
running centrically through the aircraft cabin.
Moje ,r 46.
"A reference may be read for all that it teaches." In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). A reference must be
considered in its entirety and not limited to any specific example disclosed
therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n. l (CCP A 1982) (citation
omitted). A reference is "prior art not only for the teaching of the specific
embodiment recited but for what it fairly teaches to one skilled in the art."
Id. ( citation omitted). In regard to drawings, the description of a depicted
item can be relied upon, in combination with the drawings, for what they
would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re iYright, 569
F.2d 1124, 1127-28 (CCP A 1977).
4
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
Although J\1oje's Figure 2 may not depict monument 10 located
precisely centrally in door aisle 102, J\1oje expressly discloses that
"monument 10 is arranged ... centrically in door aisle 102 ... which
extends substantially perpendicular to a main aisle 108 running along a
longitudinal axis L of the aircraft cabin." Moje ,r 46. Similarly, Figure 2
may not show the dividing wall being aligned exactly coaxially with main
aisle 108, but J\1oje discloses "[t]he vertices of the tapering base areas of the
[lavatories] 12 are consequently arranged substantially along the
longitudinal axis L running centrically through the aircraft cabin." Id.
When considering the drawings, which show the location of the dividing
wall in monument 10, together with the descriptions of the locations of
monument 10 and the vertex where the dividing wall meets the side walls of
monument 10, Moje would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in
the art that the dividing wall is coaxially aligned with main aisle 108.
In view foregoing, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's finding that Moje discloses the limitation reciting "the dividing
wall is coaxially aligned with an aisle of the internal cabin" or in the
Examiner's determination that the combined teaches of Saint-Jalmes and
Moje would have resulted in this limitation. We, therefore, sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1.
Claims 3---6, 10, and 12-14 depend from independent claim 1.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellant does not present argument for
claims 3---6, 10, and 12-14 apart from the argument for independent claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as independent claim 1, we sustain the
rejection of claims 3---6, 10, and 12-14.
5
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites the "aft rest area assembly of claim 1, further
comprising a front wall that separates the aft rest area assembly from a
seating area within the internal cabin." Appeal Br., Claims App. In
addition, claim 2 recites "wherein each of the first and second forward walls
rearwardly recedes in relation to the front wall from the central apex."
The Examiner relies on the rear wall of Saint-Jalmes' s monument 32
for disclosing the recited front wall. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further
finds Moje's side-wall regions 20c correspond to the recited forward walls.
Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner has not explained how a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Saint-Jalmes
and Moje to result in the subject matter of claim 2. Appeal Br. 15. We
disagree because, as the Examiner points out, the proposed combination of
the teachings of Saint-Jalmes and Moje with respect to independent claim 1
would have resulted in the subject matter of claim 2. Ans. 5. Namely, the
Examiner proposes to modify Saint-Jalmes to include Moje's egress flow
director, i.e., Moje's side walls 20 angled to direct disembarking passengers
toward doors 104, 106. Final Act. 3. As a result, Saint-Jalmes' s
lavatories 48 would have included Moje's angled side walls, and
Saint-Jalmes's monument 32 would have remained unchanged. The rear
wall of the monument would have served as a front wall, and the angled side
walls would have been rearwardly-receding forward walls, as recited in
claim 2.
Appellant also argues the Examiner has not explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined teachings of Saint-Jalmes and
6
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
Moje to result in the claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 15. This argument
is similarly unpersuasive. As set forth above, the Examiner's proposed
combination of the teachings of Saint-Jalmes and Moje with respect to
independent claim 1 would have resulted in the subject matter of claim 2.
The Examiner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
made the proposed combination "to better facilitate movement of passengers
when disembarking or evacuating from the aircraft." Final Act. 3.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 2. We sustain the rejection.
Re} ections II and III
Appellant argues the rejections of claims 8 and 9 solely on the basis of
the arguments directed against the rejection of independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 16. For the same reasons as independent claim 1, we sustain the
rejections of claims 8 and 9.
Rejection IV
Claim 15
Appellant argues the rejection of claim 15 solely on the basis of the
arguments directed against the rejection of independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 17. For the same reasons as independent claim 1, we sustain the
rejection of claim 15.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from independent claim 1. Appeal Br.,
Claims App. Claim 16 recites the "after rest area assembly of claim 1
7
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
"wherein the lavatory section comprises one or more lavatory receptacles
configured to receive and retain one or more lavatory modules, wherein the
one or more lavatory modules are configured to be inserted and secured into
the one or more lavatory receptacles." Id.
The Examiner relies on Savian for teaching the lavatory section
comprising a lavatory receptacle for receiving and retaining a lavatory
module, as recited in claim 16. Final Act. 8-9. Savian teaches it was known
to construct a lavatory monument as a unit and then secure the monument in
the interior of an aircraft by means of various tie-rods and brackets. Savian
,r 5. The disclosed invention in Savian is a modular lavatory monument
assembly including four walls that form an outer shell defining a lavatory
interior. Id. ,r 6. The assembly further includes a sink module, a mirror
module, toilet module, and ceiling module that are removably secured to the
outer shell. Id. ,r 9. According to Savian, "[t]he modularity ... provides for
efficient manufacturing, the ability to change modules according to airline
needs, and the ability to use and mount common modules in different sized
or shaped outer shells." Id. ,r 79.
The Examiner finds "[t]he area of the aircraft that receives the
lavatory monument comprises a lavatory receptacle configured to receive
and retain the lavatory modules, wherein the lavatory modules are
configured to be inserted and secured into the one or more lavatory
receptacles via the tie-rods and brackets." Final Act. 8; Ans. 6. The
Examiner also finds that "due to the vagueness of the claimed lavatory
receptacles and lavatory modules, ... the outer shell of Savian would also
read on a lavatory receptacle, and the components that are attached to the
8
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
outer shell, such as the sink module, would read on a lavatory module."
Ans. 6.
Appellant argues "[ w ]hile Savian discloses a lavatory monument that
includes a sink module, for example, the Office Action has not pointed to
anything in the cited references that describes, teaches, or suggests that the
lavatory monument itself is inserted and secured into a specific lavatory
receptacle." Appeal Br. 17-18. More simply put, Appellant argues that the
recited "lavatory receptacle" does not include Savian's space for receiving
lavatory monument, and that "lavatory module" does not mean components
for a lavatory, such as Savian's sink module. Appellant's argument is
persuasive.
When construing claims,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims 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); see also Chef Am., Inc.
v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining claim
terms are to be given their ordinary meaning, absent any indication that their
use in a particular context changes their meaning). Furthermore, "claims are
interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim."
Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The ordinary meaning of "lavatory" is "a room with washing and
often toilet facilities." 9 "Receptacle" ordinarily means "a container, device,
9 "lavatory," American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(5th ed. 2011).
9
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
etc. that receives or holds something." 10 Moreover, the customary meaning
of "module" is "[a] standardized, often interchangeable component of a
system or construction that is designed for easy assembly or flexible use." 11
Based on the ordinary meaning of each word, "lavatory receptacle" means
"a container for receiving a lavatory," and "lavatory module" means "a
standardized lavatory."
These meanings are consistent with the Specification. The
Specification describes lavatory receptacle 504 as a container for receiving
lavatory module 502 therein. Id. ,r 71, Fig. 5. The Specification also
describes lavatory module 502 as a lavatory, namely a room having washing
facilities. Spec. ,r 71, Fig. 5. Notably, the Specification describes a lavatory
module having various components, such as sinks, toilets, and waste
containers (id. ,r 74), so the Specification distinguishes the lavatory module
from components of a lavatory.
Giving "lavatory receptacle" its broadest reasonable interpretation,
namely "a container for receiving a lavatory," the Examiner's finding that
Savian' s area of the aircraft that receives the lavatory monument teaches a
"lavatory receptacle" is not persuasive. An area is not a container.
Similarly, when construing "lavatory module" to mean "a standardized
lavatory" pursuant to its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner's
finding that any of Savian's lavatory components, e.g., sink, mirror, teaches
a "lavatory module" is unpersuasive. A component of a lavatory is not a
lavatory.
10 "receptacle," Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary
(2010).
11 "module," American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(5th ed. 2011).
10
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner has not demonstrated
persuasively that Savian teaches the "lavatory receptacle" and "lavatory
module" recited in claim 16. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of
claim 16.
Claims 17 and 18
Like claim 16, independent claim 17 recites a "lavatory receptacle"
and "lavatory module." 12 Appeal Br., Claims App. In view of the broadest
reasonable interpretation of these terms described above, the Examiner's
rejection of claim 17 suffers from the same deficiency as the rejection of
claim 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 7 or claim 18 depending therefrom.
Rejections V and VI
Appellant relies on the same argument as independent claim 1 for
independent claim 19. Appeal Br. 19-21. For the same reasons as
independent claim 1, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 19.
Appellant does not present arguments for claim 19 apart from
independent claim 20. Id. at 21. We, therefore, similarly sustain the
rejection of claim 20.
12 Claim 17 recites an aft rest area assembly "wherein the lavatory module is
interchangeably securable within the lavatory module." Appeal Br.,
Claims App. ( emphasis added). It is unclear how a lavatory module would
be interchangeably securable within itself. Should prosecution continue,
Appellant may wish to consider amending this limitation.
11
Appeal2018-004392
Application 14/620,536
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-10, 12-15, 19, and
20 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 16-18 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12