Ex Parte Hadley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

13109163 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/109,163 05/17/2011
63759 7590 06/21/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brent Louis Hadley
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.
10-1252-US-NP 1885
EXAMINER
JARRETT, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRENT LOUIS HADLEY, JOSEPH FRANK FLOYD,
PATRICK JAN EAMES, CHRISTIAN ISAACS,
PRADEEP KRISHNASW AMY, and
STEVEN DONALD BLANCHARD1
Appeal2014-006985
Application 13/109,163
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006985
Application 13/109,163
Introduction
Appellants state their disclosure relates to performing rework on an
aircraft and particularly to "generating a template to form a scarf12J for
bonded rework." Spec. i-f 1 ("Field"). Claims 1 and 20 are exemplary:
1. A method for processing an inconsistency, the method
compnsmg:
a computer identifying a shape of the inconsistency in a
location having layers of composite materials; and
the computer creating a model of the location with a
portion of a number of layers in the layers of composite
materials removed to form a section based on the shape of the
inconsistency and a policy for rework, wherein the policy
provides/or a variable scar/ratio within the section.
20. A computer program product comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium;
first program code for identifying a shape of an
inconsistency in a location having layers of composite
materials; and
second program code for creating a model of the location
with a portion of a number of layers in the layers of composite
materials removed to form a section based on the shape of the
inconsistency and a policy for rework, wherein the first
program code and the second program code are stored on the
computer readable storage medium.
App. Br. 13, 17-18 (Claims App'x) (disputed requirements emphasized).
2 See Spec. i-f 39 ("[I]n performing rework on composite structures, a
maintenance person may need to identify a portion of a number of layers in
the layers of composite materials to remove to form a section. This section
is also referred to as a scarf.").
2
Appeal2014-006985
Application 13/109,163
Rejections
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Reis (US 6,174,392 Bl; Jan. 16, 2001). Final Act. 2.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Lindgren et al. (US 2010/0316458 Al; Dec. 26, 2010). Final
Act. 3.
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Reis and Lindgren. Final Act. 4--5.
ISSUES
The issues before us are whether the Examiner errs in rejecting claim
20 as anticipated by Reis, rejecting claims 1, 13, and 20 as anticipated by
Lindgren, and rejecting claims 1-19 and obvious over those two references.
ANALYSIS
Claim Interpretation-"Policy"
In interpreting the claim term "policy," which appears in all the
independent claims, the Examiner states "the ordinary dictionary definition
of 'policy' is prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs; and/or
management or procedure based primarily on material interest. Although
the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims." Ans. 16 (citing In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Appellants respond that the Examiner's claim interpretation is
erroneously broad in view of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2005), and that "the term 'policy' as claimed does not relate to prudence
3
Appeal2014-006985
Application 13/109,163
in management or management based on material interest, but rather to rules
and data used to apply the rules. This term is use[ d] consistently in this
manner ... in the specification." Reply 3. We agree the Examiner
unreasonably broadly interprets the term "policy" and accept, arguendo,
Appellants' contention that "policy" relates to rules and data used to apply
the rules.
Anticipation by Reis
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 20 as
anticipated by Reis because Reis' s disclosure of "gathering inputs about a
damaged area and entering the inputs to a computer to produce a replica of
the damaged area is not a policy as claimed." App. Br. 8. Appellants
contend "[t]he fact that a technician may be aided by a computer in
performing some steps does not indicate the existence of policies" and the
fact that such a technician "may merely be following generally accepted
industry and trade practices for properly repairing an aircraft surface ...
do[ es] not suggest that his or her employer or any other entity necessarily
has rules or guidelines in place that the technician must follow or is even
aware of." App. Br. 11-12. Appellants further contend "Reis relates only to
the shape by referring to areas to be avoided. Reis does not create the model
based on how the rework itself is to be carried out." Reply 5.
The Examiner counters that Reis' s disclosure of
inputting data concerning other structures which must be
avoided during any repair procedure and creating a three-
dimensional model of the repair site therefrom reads on the
claimed "policy for rework". As disclosed by Reis, this
procedure "functions to prevent unnecessary and possibly
harmful structure destruction that occurs as a damaged area is
removed" (i.e., reworked) (col. 3 lines 44-54). Therefore, this
4
Appeal2014-006985
Application 13/109,163
procedure constitutes prudence or wisdom in the management
of affairs, and/or management or procedure based primarily on
material interest, in accordance with the ordinary dictionary
definition of "policy".
Ans. 13-14.
Notwithstanding the Examiner's interpretation of "policy," Appellants
do not persuade us of error in the rejection over Reis. We agree with, and
adopt, the Examiner's findings that Reis discloses all elements of claim 20,
including the "policy for rework," as claimed. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 13-14.
Regarding the claimed "policy for rework," Reis discloses, for example,
the microprocessor functions to determine the configuration of
a plug of replacement material. Such design takes into account
materials to be used, number and thickness of layers to be
replaced, orientation of the layers, scarf ratio, and the shape of
the repair. In particular, data for each layer of replacement
material is interpolated to generate a two-dimensional laser flat
pattern from the three-dimensional laser display-replica pattern.
Col. 3, 11. 58---66 (reference numbers removed). 3
Appellants provide no persuasive explanation for why one of ordinary
skill would not immediately understand Reis' s rework process to include a
variety of rules, e.g., rules regarding materials to be used, etc. See, e.g.,
Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) ("[A] a reference can anticipate a claim even if it 'd[oes] not
expressly spell out' all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim,
if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would 'at once envisage'
the claimed arrangement or combination.") (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d
676, 681(CCPA1962)).
3 The Examiner cited this portion of Reis in the rejection. See Final Act. 2.
5
Appeal2014-006985
Application 13/109,163
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20 as
anticipated by Reis.
Anticipation by Lindgren
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting all three independent
claims (1, 13, and 20) as anticipated by Lindgren because "[a]s with Reis,
Appellant[ s] respectfully submit[] that Lindgren does not teach or suggest a
policy for rework as in claims 1, 13, and 20." App. Br. 9. Appellants
contend "Lindgren discusses method steps for removing out-of-tolerance
areas of a composite structure and does not specifically discuss a policy that
may be used in the creation of a model." Id.
The Examiner answers "that determining the 'variable scarf ratio'
within the section of Lindgren (e.g., [0025], Fig. 3B) reads on the claimed
'policy for rework'. Applicant even recites in claims 1 and 13 that 'the
policy [for rework] provides for a variable scarf ratio within the section'."
Ans. 14. Appellants reply: "[ w ]hile the variable scarf created in Figure 3A
of Lindgren may be made to fit the patch (Lindgren, paragraph 25), the patch
is preformed and not modified. Thus, no policy for rework is created in
Lindgren" and "[fJurthermore, Lindgren never explicitly defines a policy."
Reply. 6.
We again find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. We agree with,
and adopt, the Examiner's findings that Lindgren's disclosure of removing
and restoring material in a composite structure includes all elements of
claims 1, 13, and 20. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 14--15. For example,
Lindgren's discussion of the automated flow diagram of Figure 9 discloses a
necessarily rules-based policy for rework:
6
Appeal2014-006985
Application 13/109,163
At 114, the section on the fuselage selected by the user is
scanned in order to identify any out-of-tolerance areas. At 116,
data representing the out-of-tolerance areas identified at step
114 are overlaid on the aircraft fuselage skin geometry retrieved
from the database at 110, including ply surface definitions.
Using this overlaid information, the volume of material that
must be removed which includes the out-of-tolerance areas is
automatically calculated.
Lindgren i-f 38 (cited by the Examiner (Ans. 15)).
An ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Lindgren's automated
methods for removing and restoring composite aircraft structures to
necessarily include a variety of rules, e.g., rules necessary for forming
contiguous scarfs having differing scarf angles, rules for calculating volumes
of material based on ply surface definitions retrieved from a database, etc.
See, e.g., Lindgren i-fi-125, 38; Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381.
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 13, and
20 as anticipated by Lindgren.
Obviousness over Lindgren and Reis
Because we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 as anticipated by
Lindgren, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 as obvious over
Lindgren, with or without Reis. "[A] disclosure that anticipates under § 102
also renders the claim invalid under§ 103, for 'anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness."' Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed.
Cir.1983) (quoting In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982)). We
also sustain the rejection of all of the dependent claims (2-12 and 14--19),
for which Appellants provide no arguments separate from those for claims 1
and 13.
7
Appeal2014-006985
Application 13/109,163
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8