Ex Parte Meis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2017

13744409 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 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.
13/744,409 01/17/2013 Charles Steven Meis 12-0475-US-NP 5090
122219 7590 12/22/2017
Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company
One North Franklin, Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
PHAM, TUONGMINH NGUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2017 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):
bmatthias @ millermatthiashull. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
ynunez@millermatthiashull.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES STEVEN MEIS and DAVID JOHN SHAW1
Appeal 2016-007827
Application 13/744,409
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, LISA M. GUIJT, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—16.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Boeing Company (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 17—20 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2016-007827
Application 13/744,409
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1, An aircraft comprising a fuselage having a compartment; and
a fire suppression system for delivering fire suppressant to the
compartment, the system including:
at least one suppressant concentration sensor located in the
compartment;
a valve for regulating flow of the fire suppressant to the
compartment; and
a controller, responsive to the sensor, for controlling the
valve to maintain fire suppressant concentration within the
compartment at a target concentration.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Grabow US 2002/0070035 A1 June 13, 2002
Scheldt US 2005/0139366 A1 June 30, 2005
Lazzarini US 7,510,022 B2 Mar. 31,2009
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5—11,3 and 13—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lazzarini and Grabow. Final Act. 5—10.
II. Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lazzarini, Grabow, and Scheldt. Id. at 10-12.
3 Claim 5 is not listed in the heading (Final Act. 5), but is addressed in the
body of the rejection (id. at 8).
2
Appeal 2016-007827
Application 13/744,409
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Lazzarini teaches an aircraft fire suppression
system including: (i) a valve for regulating the flow of fire suppressant to a
compartment of the fuselage of the aircraft (“valve mechanisms for bottles
36 and regulators 40”); and (ii) a controller, responsive to fire detection
sensors, for controlling the valve (“control system 24 . . . responsive to . . .
fire detectors 22”). Final Act. 5 (citing Lazzarini, 3:24—34; 4:23—25; 5:1—10,
Fig. 2) (boldface omitted)). The Examiner acknowledges that Lazzarini fails
to teach a suppressant concentration sensor. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds
that Grabow teaches a suppressant concentration sensor (nitrogen sensor 16)
connected to a controller (controller 15). Id. (citing Grabow 116, Fig. 3).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art “to have modified Lazzarini to incorporate the teachings of
Grabow [] to provide suppressant concentration in the compartment.” Id. at
7. The Examiner further concludes that “[djoing so would provide a way to
determine when an effective concentration is achieved.” Id.
Although the Examiner has explained with this statement why one of
ordinary skill in the art might incorporate a suppressant concentration sensor
in the compartment of the aircraft (i.e., to sense whether an effective
concentration of suppressant has been achieved), the Examiner has not
articulated reasoning having a rational underpinning to explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would program the controller to control valves to
maintain a fire suppressant concentration within the compartment at a target
concentration in response to the sensor. See Appeal Br. 8 (The Final Action
“doesn’t even allege the use of the concentration sensor and Lazzarini’s
3
Appeal 2016-007827
Application 13/744,409
control system 24 to maintain suppressant concentration at a target level.”)
(emphasis omitted).
The Examiner additionally finds that Lazzarini’s control system 24
“controls] the valve mechanism ... to maintain a selected fire suppressant
concentration level that prevents flare-ups” and that “[t]he selected fire
suppressant concentration level is disclosed to be 3.5—4%.” Final Act. 3
(citing Lazzarini, 3:37—39, 44^48; 4:23—25; 5:18—19) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner takes the position that “Lazzarini does teach that the system
has a way to measure the suppressant concentration^] but does not explicitly
teach a suppressant concentration sensor to make this measurement.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that Grabow teaches a
concentration sensor “used to determine the maximally effective
amount/concentration of nitrogen suppressant achieved in the enclosed
space, which results in a reduced oxygen concentration that is maintained
until the fire is extinguished by oxygen starvation.” Ans. 3 (citing Grabow,
Abstract). The Examiner concludes that:
it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Lazzarini, whose purpose is to maintain fire suppressant
concentration level at a 3.5% to 4% to prevent flare-ups, to
incorporate Grabow’s teaching of the suppressant concentration
sensor so that the concentration can be accurately monitored and
maintained in order to effectively keep[] the fire suppressed or
under control.
Id. at 3^4.
Appellant argues that Lazzarini’s approach to maintaining a fire
suppressant concentration level that prevents flare-ups is “an open loop
control scheme that assumes a predetermined valve setting will provide a
sufficient fire suppressant flow rate to obtain a desired suppressant
4
Appeal 2016-007827
Application 13/744,409
concentration.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant continues that “[significantly,
Lazzarini does not disclose or suggest adjusting a position of the regulator
40 within a given phase, but instead teaches that the regulator 40 has a
predetermined setting intended to deliver enough suppressant to reach the
desired concentration.” Id. at 3^4 (citing Lazzarini, 5:22—32); see also id. at
4 (“Lazzarini fails to disclose or suggest a controller that dynamically
adjusts valve position during a given phase of fire suppression to maintain a
target concentration.”).
Appellant also argues that “the controller of Grabow uses . . .
feedback [i.e., a sensed oxygen or nitrogen concentration] simply to switch
from the knockdown phase to the suppression phase, and does not otherwise
disclose or suggest dynamic adjustment of a valve position to maintain a
target suppressant concentration.” Id. at 5. That is, according to Appellant,
“[a]t no point does Grabow disclose or suggest using feedback from the
sensor 16 to dynamically control a position of the flow limiting device 7, or
otherwise adjust a position of the flow limiting device 7 during a particular
phase of fire suppression.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown either
Lazzarini or Grabow to have a controller responsive to a suppressant
concentration sensor so as to control a valve that regulates flow of the
suppressant in order to maintain a suppressant concentration at a target
concentration. We next consider whether the Examiner has articulated
reasoning having a rational underpinning to explain why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have programmed Lazzarini’s controller to be
responsive to a suppressant concentration sensor to control a valve that
5
Appeal 2016-007827
Application 13/744,409
regulates flow of the suppressant in order to maintain a suppressant
concentration at a target concentration.
Although Lazzarini suggests a desire to maintain a certain suppressant
concentration level during a suppression phase (e.g., 3.5% to 4%), it appears
to do this with “regulators [that] provide a substantially continuous, metered
flow of Halon to the target compartment.” Lazzarini, 5:6—10. Lazzarini
contemplates that “[o]ther embodiments can provide greater or fewer
metered bottles 38 and regulators 40 or other flow restricting devices with
valve settings that provide a flow of Halon greater or less than [the particular
amount identified in a first embodiment] pounds per minute, so as to
maintain the concentration of Halon within the cargo compartment,” but the
suppressant still appears to be dispensed in connection with predetermined
settings, rather than with changing valve settings. Id. at 5:22—31. Because
of the way Lazzarini’s system works, there appears to be no reason to have
Lazzarini’s control system 24 control valve mechanisms for bottles 36 and
regulators 40 in response a suppressant concentration sensor because the
valve settings have been predetermined to provide an appropriate amount of
fire suppressant to maintain the target concentration (and, thus, keep the fire
suppressed or under control).
Although Grabow teaches a suppression concentration sensor, it
teaches the use of such a sensor only to sense when “a maximally effective
fire suppressing concentration of oxygen (or of nitrogen) has been achieved”
so as to cause flow rate or quantity limiting device 7 interposed in supply
line 6 to “supply a reduced flow quantity of nitrogen gas through the supply
line 6 into the enclosed space 4.” Grabow 116. Grabow does not teach or
suggest a control system that controls valves in response to the suppressant
6
Appeal 2016-007827
Application 13/744,409
concentration sensor in order to maintain the suppressant concentration at a
target concentration. Grabow instead teaches supplying fire suppressant “at
a prescribed rate or in a prescribed quantity into the enclosed space” after the
maximally effective fire extinguishing oxygen concentration has been
achieved (Grabow 17), and does not teach that this rate would change (via
changing valve settings) in response to a sensed suppressant concentration.
See id. 1 8 (“the subsequent supply of nitrogen at a lower rate but in an
essentially unlimited available supply quantity (e.g. in a continuous on-going
manner for an essentially unlimited period of time) is effective to maintain
the oxygen concentration at the appropriate level, preferably until the fire is
extinguished”). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 3), Grabow
does not “teach[] utilizing the suppressant concentration sensor to determine
and maintain a target suppressant concentration that is effective to
extinguish the fire.” That is, Grabow does not change its rate of supply of
fire suppressant or change any other settings in an effort to maintain a target
concentration, but merely supplies fire suppressant at some predetermined
first rate in a knockout phase and then at some predetermined second rate in
a suppression phase.
The Examiner has not sufficiently articulated reasoning with a rational
evidentiary underpinning to explain what would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art, based on the teachings of Lazzarini and Grabow, to modify
Lazzarini’s control system 24 to be programmed to control the valve
mechanisms for bottles 36 and regulators 40 in response to an incorporated
suppressant concentration sensor so as to maintain a suppressant
concentration at a target concentration. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “some articulated reasoning with some rational
7
Appeal 2016-007827
Application 13/744,409
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with
approval in KSRInt'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Lazzarini and Grabow renders obvious
the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 10, and we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 10, or claims 2, 5—9, 11, and 13—16 which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lazzarini and
Grabow.
Rejection II
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 relies on the Examiner’s
erroneous conclusion that Lazzarini and Grabow renders obvious the subject
matter of independent claims 1 and 10. Final Act. 10—12. The E?
does not explain how Scheidt might cure this underlying del
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lazzarini, Grabow, and Scheidt.
n\r
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16 is reversed.
REVERSED
8