Ex Parte Diep et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

13915994 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/915,994 06/12/2013
155028 7590 06/19/2018
VIV ACQUA LAW, PLLC
vivacqua Law, PLLC
3101 East Eisenhower Parkway
STE 1
ANN ARBOR, MI 48108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Diep
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.
12-1766-US-NP 2494
EXAMINER
BADAWI, MEDHAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2018 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 PAUL DIEP, BERNHARD DOPKER, and
ROBERT W. JOHNSON
Appeal2017-003385
Application 13/915,994
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated March 31, 2016
("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16, and 21-23 2 under 35
1 Appellant is the Applicant, The Boeing Company, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 11, 15, and 17-20 have been withdrawn. Final Act. 1.
Appeal2017-003385
Application 13/915,994
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 5,062,589, issued Nov. 5,
1991), Stephan (US 6,378,805 Bl, issued Apr. 30, 2002), and Koch (US
2011/0101164 Al, published May 5, 2011).
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosure is directed to "pressure bulkheads for use in
vehicles" such as aircraft. Spec. ,r,r 1-2. Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below from page 13 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A pressure bulkhead comprising:
a bulkhead wall having a radially inner disk of a first
thickness and a radially outer compression ring of a second
thickness defining a convex surface as a first side of the
bulkhead wall, wherein the radially outer compression ring
defines a periphery of the bulkhead wall, and the second
thickness is greater than the first thickness;
wherein the second thickness of the outer compression
ring is effective to provide a strength to oppose meridional and
hoop stresses across the surface of the radially inner disk in
response to a pressure differential across the bulkhead wall; and
the radially inner disk being unitary with the outer compression
ring and being made of the same material as the outer
compression ring; and
an attachment ring having a concave surface oriented
toward a non-pressurized area and attached to the first side and
the periphery of the bulkhead wall.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Roth discloses a pressure bulkhead
substantially as recited in claim 1, including a bulkhead wall (bulkhead
element 2) having a radially inner disk (major portion 2b) and a radially
2
Appeal2017-003385
Application 13/915,994
outer compression ring (edge portion 2a). Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner
relies upon Stephan to teach forming the inner disk and outer compression
ring of the same material. Id. at 5. The Examiner relies on Koch to teach an
attachment ring ( outer chord 228) attached to a bulkhead wall ( dome convex
front surface 212), reasoning that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to add Koch's attachment ring to Roth's bulkhead
wall "to reduce weight- to avoid the traditional 'brick wall' approach in
[Koch] fig. 1- of the bulkhead and to maintain the unitary [sic] and reduce
weight." Id.; see also id. at 12 (clarifying that reference is made to Koch's
Figure 1 ). The Examiner further reasons that such a skilled artisan would
add Koch's outer chord 228 to Roth's bulkhead "to add strength and
stiffness based on the desired requirements." Final Act. 14 (boldface
omitted); see also Ans. 3 ( citing Roth, 4: 14--19). The Examiner relies on the
same findings and reasoning in rejecting independent claim 10. Final Act. 8.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's "brick wall" rationale is
improper "because Roth has no mention of the 'brick wall' approach, i.e., it
is not a problem with which Roth was concerned." Appeal Br. 8; see also
id. at 7-10. We agree. Roth recognizes that metal bulkhead walls may
exhibit undesired characteristics, such as crack propagation. Roth, 1: 16-21.
To avoid such problems, Roth provides a monolithic bulkhead made of fiber
reinforced materials. Id.at 1:34--50, Fig. 1. One benefit of such a bulkhead
is its low weight. Id. at 1:36-37, 1:50-52, 2:25.
Thus, Roth does not employ the "brick wall" structure as illustrated in
Koch Figure 1. The Examiner's rationale to add Koch's outer chord 228 to
3
Appeal2017-003385
Application 13/915,994
Roth's bulkhead to avoid the "brick wall" approach, therefore, lacks a
rational underpinning.
Appellant also traverses the Examiner's determination that a skilled
artisan would add Koch's outer chord 228 to Roth's bulkhead to provide
additional strength and stiffness. Appellant argues that "[a]dding the outer
chord 228 in the same position taught by Koch, positioned around the outer
perimeter, which in Roth is edge portion[] 2a, destroys the angle that Koch
taught was purposeful." Appeal Br. 11. This argument is unpersuasive
because the Examiner does not propose to add the outer chord around Roth's
edge portion 2a; instead, the Examiner proposes to add the outer chord on
the convex side of bulkhead element 2, between major portion 2b and
fuselage 1. Final Act. 12-13 (providing an annotated copy of Roth, Fig. 1);
Ans. 4--5 (reproducing the annotated copy of Roth, Fig. 1), 6-7 ("the chord
228 is not placed between the edge portion 2a and the fuselage, it is placed
between the portion 2b and the fuselage as a stiffening ... wherein the
location between the portion 2b and the fuselage allows the angled
connection").
Appellant also argues that Roth's discussion of including "stiffenings"
(see Roth, 4: 14--19), which is relied upon by the Examiner (see Ans. 3),
merely contemplates stiffening of the bulkhead, but does not suggest an
added connection between the bulkhead and the fuselage. Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree. As noted above, Roth provides a monolithic bulkhead
made of fiber reinforced materials. Roth, 1 :34--50, Fig. 1. Edge portion 2a
runs parallel to the fuselage to simplify fastening. Id. at 2:34--36. "The
reinforcement of the edges represents an internal frame and is preferably
4
Appeal2017-003385
Application 13/915,994
provided through the embedding of additional fiber layers." Id. at 2:45--47.
"Any reinforcing edges such as annuli are reinforced with unidirectional
(peripherally) extending fibers." Id. at 3: 12-14. Roth explains that the
reinforced edge portion is an annulus that absorbs compression forces such
that "[a] separate stiffening frame is avoided." Id. at 4:58-5:2.
Thus, considering the teachings of Roth as a whole, we agree that if
one of ordinary skill in the art sought to add strength and stiffness to Roth's
bulkhead, Roth instructs such a skilled artisan to add additional reinforcing
layers to edge portion 2a of Roth's bulkhead element 2. Roth further
instructs such a skilled artisan not to add a separate stiffening frame, such as
Koch's outer chord 228, as suggested by the Examiner.
We further note that with the positioning of Koch's outer chord 228
on the convex surface of Roth's bulkhead element 2, between major portion
2b and fuselage 1 (see Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 4--7), it is not clear how the
outer chord would be attached to the edge portion 2a (i.e., the attachment
ring) as required by claims 1 and 10. Regarding claim 1, we note that the
"periphery of the bulkhead wall" is defined by "the radially outer
compression ring." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1 or of claims 3-9, 12, 13, 16, and 21-23 that depend from and/or
incorporate the recitations of claim 1.
Like claim 1, independent claim 10 similarly requires an attachment
ring attached to the compression ring (id. at 14 (Claims App.)), and the
Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning as in the rejection of
claim 1. Final Act. 8. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above
5
Appeal2017-003385
Application 13/915,994
with respect to the rejection of claim 1, we similarly do not sustain the
rejection of claim 10 or of claim 14 which depends from and/or incorporates
the recitations of claim 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16, and 21-
23 is reversed.
REVERSED
6