Ex Parte Joern

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12793114 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121793,114 06/03/2010
530 7590 03/28/2016
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH A VENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul J. Joern
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.
AIRBUS 3.0-553 6024
EXAMINER
XAVIER, VALENTINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL J. JOERN
Appeal2014-003368
Application 12/793,1141
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bladt (US 2003/0234322 Al, pub. Dec. 25, 2003). Final
Act. 2--4. Claims 8 and 9 have been allowed. Id. at 4. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is the assignee Airbus
Operations GmbH. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003368
Application 12/793,114
Claimed Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. An aircraft fuselage comprising:
an exterior skin;
at least one window frame;
at least one window package disposed in a breakout of the
exterior skin and attached to the at least one window frame; and
a plurality of stiffening elements configured to stiffen the
exterior skin, wherein at least one of the stiffening elements
crosses the at least one window package so as to form two
window sections.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-7, 10, and 11
The Examiner finds Bladt' s aircraft 100 comprises an exterior skin
150 and a window frame 140 (Ans. 4); and a window package 110 and a
plurality of stiffening elements 106, 107 (stringers and aircraft frames or
ribs, respectively) (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner also finds that although
the embodiment shown in Bladt's Figures 1-3 shows substantially all of the
subject matter of claim 1, this embodiment fails to teach "at least one of the
stiffening elements crosses the at least one window package so as to form
two window sections," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner turns to the embodiment shown in Bladt' s Figure 6D to
remedy the deficiency of the embodiment shown in Bladt's Figures 1-3 as it
relates to the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 2-3. Specifically, the
Examiner finds "Figure 6D shows an alternate embodiment where a
stiffening element ([generally horizontal cross member] 648d) crosses the
window package so as to form two window sections." Id.; see Bladt,
2
Appeal2014-003368
Application 12/793,114
para. 32. The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art ... to include this configuration in the
stiffening elements ... in order to strengthen the structure of the window
package along with the exterior skin." Final Act. 3.
The Examiner determines that combining the teachings of Bladt's
embodiments would have resulted in "window frame (640 or 140) ...
integrally formed or rigidly attached to the flange (644 or 144) which in tum
is attached to the inner surface of the external skin (150)." Ans. 4--5. As
such, dividers 648d would be integrally formed with the corresponding
window frame, and applying this teaching to window frame 140 would
result in window frame 140, particularly at flange 144, contacting and
supporting exterior skin 150. See id.; see also Bladt, Fig. 3. Put simply, as a
result of the combined teachings divider 648d would stiffen exterior skin
150.
The Appellant asserts, in reference to the Specification, that "the
stiffening elements are distinct from the window frame 12, 14 and the
window package 8, 10." Appeal Br. 3; see id. at 4 (citing Spec., para. 3).
This assertion is not persuasive because the claims do not require that the
stiffening elements are separate from the window frame or window package.
See also Spec., para. 5 (explaining that window packages may act as load
bearing components).
The Appellant also argues that divider element 648d would not
provide a stiffening function. Appeal Br. 3--4. This argument is not
persuasive as it fails to explain persuasively error in the Examiner's
determinations discussed above.
3
Appeal2014-003368
Application 12/793,114
The Appellant also asserts that "a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the openings provided by window sections or
packages substantially reduces the strength of exterior skin." Reply Br. 1-2;
see Appeal Br. 4. The Appellant's assertion is not persuasive because it is
directed to how an opening in the exterior skin weakens the exterior skin,
which is outside of the scope of the Examiner's rejection. Indeed, openings
120 exist in exterior skin 150 (Bladt, Fig. 2, para. 16); as such, exterior skin
150 would already be in a weakened condition. And Bladt, as modified by
the Examiner, results in a divider 648d that stiffens exterior skin 150.
Supra.
We have considered the remaining arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, concerning the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and have
determined that they are not persuasive. Thus, the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Bladt is sustained. The Appellant does not
separately argue the rejection of claims 3-7, 10, and 11, as such, the
rejection of these claims is also sustained.
Dependent claim 2
Claim 2 recites, "[t ]he aircraft fuselage as recited in claim 1, wherein
the at least one stiffening element includes at least one recess configured to
receive the at least one window frame." Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis
added). "[T]he at least one stiffening element" of claim 2 refers back to "at
least one of the stiffening elements [that] crosses the at least one window
package so as to form two window sections," and not more generally to "a
plurality of stiffening elements configured to stiffen the exterior skin." Id.
4
Appeal2014-003368
Application 12/793,114
The Examiner finds "[r]egarding claim 2, Bladt discloses that the at
least one stiffening element includes at least one recess ( 106 and 107 cross at
four comers to provide a rectangular recess -figure 2) is configured to
receive the at least one window frame." Final Act. 3.
The Appellant contends the Examiner's application of Bladt "logically
conflicts with itself." Appeal Br. 5; see Reply Br. 3. The Appellant's
contention is persuasive. Here, the Examiner fails to consistently refer to the
same element as "the at least one stiffening element," as required by claim 2.
More specifically, for the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that "the
at least one stiffening element" corresponds to horizontal cross member
648d. Final Act. 3. For the rejection of claim 2, the Examiner finds that
"the at least one stiffening element" corresponds to stringers 106 and ribs
107. Moreover, although stringers 106 and aircraft frames or ribs 107 are
stiffening members, and correspond to "a plurality of stiffening elements" as
required by claim 1, stringers 106 and aircraft frames or ribs 107 do not
"cross[] the at least one window package so as to form two window
sections," as required by claim 1. And, as such, stringers 106 and ribs 107
cannot properly be applied to "the at least one stiffening element," as recited
in claim 2.
Thus, the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Bladt
is not sustained.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 10, and
11.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 2.
5
Appeal2014-003368
Application 12/793,114
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6