Ex Parte Russell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14011237 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
14/011,237 08/27/2013 Shawn P. Russell 10623-19 9958
104057 7590
Evans & Dixon, LLC
211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500
Metropolitan Square
St.Louis, MO 63102
09/05/2017 EXAMINER
NGO, HUNG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
patentadmin @ boeing. com
ip@evans-dixon.com
jrolnicki@evans-dixon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN P. RUSSELL
Appeal 2017-0008601
Application 14/011,237
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The real party in interest as indicated in the Appeal Brief (page 2) is “The
Boeing Company.”
Appeal 2017-000860
Application 14/011,237
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—5 and 7—15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to “the construction of an aircraft
window and in particular an aircraft passenger window.” (Spec. 11).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An aircraft window comprising:
a peripheral edge extending around the aircraft window;
a transparent layer extending across the aircraft window;
a layer of electromagnetic shielding material embedded
inside the transparent layer, the layer of electromagnetic
shielding material being encapsulated inside the transparent
layer with opposite surfaces of the layer of electromagnetic
shielding material being covered over by the transparent layer,
the transparent layer encapsulating the layer of electromagnetic
shielding material protecting the opposite surfaces of the layer
of electromagnetic shielding material embedded inside the
transparent layer; and,
an electrical conductor on the peripheral edge, the
electrical conductor being connected in electric communication
with the layer of electromagnetic shielding material.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1—5 and 7—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over La Chapelle (US 2004/0229607 Al; Nov. 18, 2004) in
view of Hikita (US 2005/0039936 Al; Feb. 24, 2005).
2
Appeal 2017-000860
Application 14/011,237
Appellant’s argument focuses on subject matter common to
independent claims 1 and 9 (App. Br. 3—7). We select claim 1 as
representative. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(iv).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that La Chapelle teaches all the limitations of
claim 1, except for the electromagnetic shielding material embedded inside
the transparent layer as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 2—3). The Examiner
finds that Hikita teaches forming a layer of shielding material 33 embedded
inside the transparent layer 35a, 35b with the electromagnetic shielding
material encapsulated inside the transparent layer with opposite surfaces of
the layer of electromagnetic shielding material being covered over by the
transparent layer as shown in Figure 1 (Final Act. 5). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to embed the shielding material
of La Chapelle inside the transparent layer for the purpose of protecting the
shielding material (id. ).
Appellant argues that Hikita fails to teach a single layer having a
shielding layer embedded in a window face member (App. Br. 5—6).
Appellant contends that “layer” means a “single thickness of a material” (id.
at 5). Appellant argues that “embedded” as defined in the Specification
means “the layer of shielding material 32 is encapsulated inside the
transparent layer 30 . . . [where] [t]he opposite surfaces 34, 36 of the layer of
shielding material 32 are covered over by the transparent layer 30” (id. at 4).
Appellant argues that Hikita teaches either forming the shielding layer on the
surface of the window material or sandwiching the shield material layer
between two window panes (35a, 35b), either embodiment of which does not
3
Appeal 2017-000860
Application 14/011,237
teach a shielding material embedded in a single transparent layer (id. at 6—7).
Appellant argues that pinching the shielding layer between two window
panes teaches away from embedding the shielding material inside a
transparent layer (id. at 6—7).
Claim 1 requires a transparent layer in which is embedded a layer of
electromagnetic shielding material such that the shielding material is
encapsulated inside the transparent layer with opposite surfaces of the layer
of shielding material being covered by the transparent layer wherein the
transparent layer protects the opposite surfaces of the layer of
electromagnetic shielding material embedded inside the transparent layer.
The Specification (| 23) defines “embedded” as the layer of shielding
material 32 is encapsulated inside the transparent layer 30 so that the
opposite sides 34, 36 of the shielding material are covered over by the
material of the transparent layer 30. The Specification does not describe the
degree of embedding that is required for the shielding material to be
considered as embedded in the layer. Moreover, the claim does not preclude
the transparent layer being formed of multiple individual layers. The claim
uses the open-ended transitional claim language “comprising.”
Based on these findings, we find that claim 1 does not distinguish
over the structure shown in Hikita’s Figure 1. Hikita’s Figure 1 structure
shows that panes 35a and 35b form a transparent layer in which shielding
layer 33 is encapsulated. Hikita’s shielding layer 33 is protected by pane
layers 35a and 35b. Panes 35a and 35b cover the top and bottom sides of
shielding layer 33 and thereby encapsulate the shielding layer 33. In other
words, Hikita’s shielding layer 33 is embedded in the layer formed by panes
35a and 35b. Hikita’s structure is similar to that shown in Appellant’s
4
Appeal 2017-000860
Application 14/011,237
Figure 2 where shielding layer 32 is shown as a separate layer in transparent
layer 30. In other words, Appellant’s transparent layer 30 includes shielding
layer 32 and is made up of more than one layer. Although Appellant
contends that claim 1 requires one, single transparent layer, Appellant does
not direct us to evidence that the claim recitation of “a transparent layer”
excludes having a transparent layer composed of multiple layers.
We further find that Hikita teaches that the window layer and
shielding layer may be formed as a single window layer (Hikita 1101). In
other words, Hikita teaches encapsulating and embedding the shielding layer
in the window layers (i.e., 35) to form a single layer transparent layer having
a shielding functionality too.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over La
Chapelle in view of Hikita.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5