The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2021

2020005637 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021)

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.
14/488,984 09/17/2014 Jeffrey H. Hunt 13-1456-US-NP 2306
63759 7590 05/26/2021
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
SWIATOCHA, GREGORY D.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3799
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2021 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
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY H. HUNT, STEPHEN A. WALLS, and
DAVID ARTHUR WHELAN
Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 9–13, 16, and 18–21. See Non-
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fuselage manufacturing system. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a cradle system that supports a first fuselage section and a
second fuselage section and applies forces to the first fuselage
section to change a current shape of the first fuselage section to
a reference shape based on measurements of the first fuselage
section and the second fuselage section and to join the first
fuselage section to the second fuselage section, wherein the
reference shape is a measured shape of the second fuselage
section;
a metrology system that makes the measurements by
transmitting a group of beams of light from a scanning device to
first targets on a first interior surface of the first fuselage section
and to second targets on a second interior surface of the second
fuselage section, detecting a reflected light from the group of
beams of light, and generating the measurements of the first
fuselage section and the second fuselage section using the
reflected light generated in response to the group of beams of
light; and
a controller that receives the measurements from the
metrology system, determines, using the measurements, a
difference between the current shape of the first fuselage section
and the reference shape, calculates the forces to be applied by the
cradle system in response to determining that there is a difference
between the current shape of the first fuselage section and the
reference shape, wherein the forces to be applied are calculated
by using a finite element model to identify changes that may be
produced in the current shape of the first fuselage section in
response to applying a plurality of different forces, wherein the
forces to be applied are the forces of the plurality of different
forces that may change the current shape of the first fuselage
section to the reference shape and sends commands to the cradle
system to apply the forces;
wherein the first fuselage section is held in a first cradle
and the second fuselage section is held in a second cradle, a first
end of the first fuselage section is shaped by the controller using
Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
3
the first cradle based on the measurements of the first fuselage
section and the second fuselage section, the first end of the first
fuselage section is joined, using the first cradle, to a second end
of the second fuselage section, and the scanning device is located
between the first end of the first fuselage section and the second
end of the second fuselage section; and
wherein the first cradle and the second cradle are mobile
and configured to be movable horizontally within an aircraft
manufacturing environment.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Fernandez US 2009/0266936 A1 Oct. 29, 2009
Weber US 2010/0135754 A1 June 3, 2010
Marsh US 2011/0190941 A1 Aug. 4, 2011
Koda JP 2006051557
(Translation)
Feb. 23, 2006
Juedes EP2756934 A1
(Translation)
July 23, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11–13, 16, and 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Juedes, Marsh, and Koda. Non-Final Act.
5.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Juedes, Marsh, Koda, and Weber. Non-Final Act. 17.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Juedes, Marsh, Koda, and Fernandez. Non-Final Act. 18.

Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
4
OPINION
Obviousness
The Examiner relied on the combination of Juedes, Marsh, and Koda
for all aspects of the independent claims before us, claims 1, 11 and 20.
In particular, for claim 12 the Examiner relies on Juedes to disclose “a
cradle system . . . [that] applies forces to the first fuselage section to change
a current shape of the first fuselage section to a reference shape based on
measurements of the first fuselage section and the second fuselage section
. . . wherein the reference shape is a measured shape of the second fuselage
section” and “a controller that . . . determines, using the measurements, a
difference between the current shape of the first fuselage section and the
reference shape.” Non-Final Act. 5.
To this point, Appellant argues:
Juedes does not teach measuring the shape of the second
workpiece and then using a detected difference in the measured
shapes of the first workpiece and the second workpiece to adjust
the shape of the first workpiece. In fact, Juedes does not disclose
measuring the shape of a second workpiece at all.
Appeal Br 10.
The Examiner agrees “that Juedes does not explicitly state that the
shape of the second workpiece is measured.” Answer 18. The Examiner rests
on an inherency argument to reason “that the shape and measurements of the
second workpiece must be known in order for the two sections to precisely
fit one another.” Answer 19.

2 The Examiner makes similar findings and applies similar reasoning
regarding independent claims 11 and 20. Final Act. 10–13, 14–17
Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
5
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a
basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows
from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d
1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (cited at MPEP § 2112).
To support the finding of inherency, the Examiner reasons that one
workpiece is “usually” adjusted to fit another workpiece. The Examiner’s
reasoning relies on the disclosure in Juedes where prior art methods of
assembling are discussed: “the one workpiece is bent while being positioned
in relation to the other workpiece until a desired fit of the one workpiece
with respect to the other workpiece is obtained.” Juedes ¶ 3. “Usually during
assembly aircraft structure components have to be positioned in relation to
one another and have to be adjusted in shape, i.e. bent, in order to precisely
fit to one another.” Juedes ¶ 27. The Examiner further reasons that the shape
of a second workpiece is known because Juedes discloses the process may
be iterative by adjusting the shape of the first workpiece and repositioning it
repeatedly. Non-Final Act. 5.
This reasoning does not support the finding that Juedes necessarily
discloses: “a reference shape [that is] a measured shape of the second
fuselage section” used for “determin[ing] a difference between the current
shape of the first fuselage section and [the measured shape of second
fuselage section],” and “a cradle system that . . . applies forces to the first
fuselage section to change the current shape of the first fuselage section to
the [measured shape of the second fuselage section.]” Juedes discusses the
prior art methods of assembly in order to differentiate the prior art from the
disclosed inventive method. Juedes discloses that the prior art methods
“appear to be difficult and time consuming.” Juedes ¶ 3. The Examiner does
Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
6
not provide evidence or reasoning to support the notion that Juedes
continues to utilize these disparaged features of the prior art methods.
Further, the iterative process suggested by Juedes only necessitates that the
adjusting and positioning be repeated. Juedes discloses that repositioning is
required “to facilitate preparation of connections between the workpieces.”
Juedes ¶ 22. Therefore, contrary to the assertion by the Examiner, when
Juedes workpiece is a “fuselage section,” it is not necessary that “a measured
shape of the second fuselage section” be known.
Juedes discloses adjusting the first workpiece to “the desired shape.”
Juedes ¶¶ 7, 19, 25. However, Juedes does not suggest that the desired shape
is the second workpiece.3 Nor is it necessary that the desired shape be that of
the second workpiece. The desired shape could be, for example, a
predetermined reference shape. As such, the Examiner has not provided a
basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
determination that Juedes’ cradle system necessarily “applies forces that
change the current shape of the first fuselage section to the [measured shape
of the second fuselage section.].”
The Examiner further relies on Marsh to teach “generating the
measurements of the first fuselage section and the second fuselage section
. . . calculating the forces to be applied to the cradle system in response to
determining that there is a difference between the current shape of the first
fuselage section and the reference shape.” Non-Final Act. 8.

3 The Examiner equates the first workpiece of Juedes to the recited “first
fuselage section,” the “second workpiece” to the recited “second fuselage
section,” and the “desired shape” to the recited “reference shape.”
Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
7
To this point, Appellant argues “Marsh does not disclose, suggest, or
teach controlling the shape of a first structure based on the measurements of
the second structure.” Appeal Brief 11.
In support of the rejection, the Examiner cites to where Marsh
discloses: “two structures 106 may be mated together while the respective
contours of structures 106 are adjusted to the desired configurations.” Marsh
¶ 70. Marsh indicates that the mating may be accomplished by one or more
contour control systems – which would correspond to the cradle system as
claimed – and that shape of the structure attached to the system is measured.
Marsh ¶¶ 46, 60. Although this disclosure would cure the deficiency of
Juedes relating to the lack of measurement of the second fuselage section,
there is no suggestion in Marsh that the disclosed desired configuration for
the first structure must necessarily be the measured shape of the second
fuselage section. As is the case in Juedes, the desired configuration may be a
predetermined reference shape. There is further no suggestion of
determining a difference between the first fuselage section and the second
fuselage.
The Examiner further cites to Marsh ¶ 58 where it is discussed that the
data pertaining to the shape of the fuselage can be stored in the memory of
the system and another system. The Examiner uses this disclosure to
conclude that the shape of the second workpiece is stored to replicate a
desired configured for the first workpiece. Answer 20. This conclusion takes
the disclosure of Marsh out of context. The cited disclosure discusses a
single workpiece where the desired configuration may be maintained when
transported between systems. The cited disclosure is not discussed in
conjunction with the latter disclosure of mating two structures. There is no
Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
8
suggestion in Marsh that the features discussed at ¶ 58 would combine with
the features discussed at ¶ 70 to arrive at the Examiner’s conclusion.
The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or technical
reasoning to demonstrate that the claimed combination including “a cradle
system that . . . applies forces to the first fuselage section to change a current
shape of the first fuselage section to a reference shape based on
measurements of the first fuselage section and the second fuselage section
. . . wherein the reference shape is a measured shape of the second fuselage
section” and “a controller that . . . determines, using the measurements, a
difference between the current shape of the first fuselage section and the
reference shape” would have been obvious in view of the cited reference
teachings.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
Appeal 2020-005637
Application 14/488,984
9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 9, 11–
13, 16, 19–
21
103 Juedes, Marsh,
Koda
1, 2, 9, 11–
13, 16, 19–
21
10 103 Juedes, Marsh,
Koda, Weber
10
18 103 Juedes, Marsh,
Koda, Fernandez
18
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 9, 10–
13, 16, 18–
21

REVERSED