Ex Parte McIver et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12961123 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/961, 123 12/06/2010
63759 7590 06/30/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Keith L. Mclver
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.
10-0472-US-NP 8589
EXAMINER
KONG, SZE-HON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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 KEITH L. MCIVER, RUSSELL LEE KELLER,
CONG NGHIEP DUONG, NICOLETTE P. YOVANOF,
MYLES LEONARD BAKER, SCOTT MICHAEL YOUNG,
KEVIN MICHAEL ROUGHEN, and KELLY M. GREENE
Appeal2014-001744 1
Application 12/961,123 2
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed July
31, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 12, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 27, 2013) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed May 1, 2013).
2 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-001744
Application 12/961, 123
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates generally to maintenance and
particularly to systems and methods for determining rework plans that
address inconsistencies in vehicles such as aircraft." Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A rework system for a vehicle having an
inconsistency on a component of the vehicle, the rework system
compnsmg:
a rework assessor configured to examine a rework
parameter array to ascertain whether a rework procedure is to be
performed, wherein the rework parameter array defines at least
volumetric dimensions of the component, a type of the
inconsistency, and location coordinates of the inconsistency with
respect to the component or the vehicle; [and]
a rework interrogator in communication with the rework
assessor, the rework interrogator configured to, when a rework is
to be performed, identify a candidate for addressing the
inconsistency, the candidate selected based on both an
ascertainment by the rework assessor and a received input
comprising a rule of thumb criteria, the candidate further selected
from the group consisting of: a candidate part, a candidate
rework procedure, and both the candidate part and the candidate
rework procedure.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perkins (US 2009/0234616 Al, pub. Sept. 17, 2009) and
Xu (US 2012/0109660 Al, pub. May 3, 2012).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Perkins, Xu, and Goebel (US 7,933,754, iss. Apr. 26, 2011).
2
Appeal2014-001744
Application 12/961, 123
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2---8 and 11-15
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Perkins, on
which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest "a rework
interrogator ... configured to, when a rework is to be performed, identify a
candidate for addressing the inconsistency, the candidate selected based on
both an ascertainment by the rework assessor and a received input
comprising a rule of thumb criteria, the candidate further selected from the
group consisting of: a candidate part, a candidate rework procedure, and
both the candidate part and the candidate rework procedure," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 10-12; see also Reply Br. 7-9. The Examiner relies on
Perkins as disclosing the argued limitation. Ans. 6 (citing Perkins i-fi-1 4 7,
57); see also Final Act. 5 (citing Perkins i-fi-147, 57, 100).
Appellants' Specification defines "rules of thumb" as "guidelines for
rework plans, rework procedures, or parts." Spec. i176. Appellants'
Specification also defines "reworking" as a sub-category of maintenance that
includes replacing components to address inconsistencies or to address other
issues, removal of components, and other such information. Id. i-f 26. A
"rework procedure" refers to a technique or series of steps used to perform a
rework. Id. i132. And a "rework plan" refers to a proposed series of steps
for implementing a rework, and/or one or more parts proposed to be used
during the rework. Id. i133.
Perkins relates to automated analysis for repair and maintenance of
composite aircraft parts. Id. i12. Perkins describes that the basic chemistry
of composite materials obviates the validity of "rules of thumb" as a way to
3
Appeal2014-001744
Application 12/961, 123
determine that a repaired part will satisfactory provide the same form, fit,
and function as the original composite part. Id. i-f 3. As a result, Perkins
provides an automatic repair planning and part archival system ("ARPP AS")
that supports the need for individual part analysis and the need for a
comprehensive database of aircraft parts damaged. Id. i-fi-110, 37.
In operation, a user selects an aircraft part from a list of available
parts, and a view of an area of the selected part to be analyzed for repair. Id.
i-fi-142--43. ARPPAS posts an engineering drawing of the selected part view
and displays the part's previous repairs. Id. i-fi-143, 100. The user enters
repair area geometry, which ARPPAS transforms into a digitized part
structural model coordinate system. Id. i-fi-1 44, 46. The user selects a solver
associated with an engineering analysis subroutine from among several
options. Id. i-f 47. ARPPAS records analysis process information and
engineering reference data as a new record unique for that part ID and repair
instance. Id. i-fi-147, 100. Information is submitted to the selected solver for
analysis, ARPP AS assembles additional data needed to execute the analysis.
Id. i-f 48. ARPPAS provides the user with the option to select an alternative
solver, and can support a multiplicity of such analysis by encapsulating the
unique requirements of each analysis type's data file formats. Id. i-f 51.
ARPP AS compares the engineering analysis results with approved values
obtained from structural analysis programs used as acceptance criteria. Id.
,-r 57.
There is no question that Perkins discloses a tool to perform an
analysis on a particular composite aircraft part and archive any repairs made.
But we find nothing in the cited portions of Perkins that discloses or
suggests that a rework interrogator identifies a candidate for addressing the
4
Appeal2014-001744
Application 12/961, 123
inconsistency based on both an ascertainment by the rework assessor and a
received input comprising a rule of thumb criteria, as recited in claim 1. For
example, we fail to see, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, how
Perkins teaches a rework interrogator receiving a rule of thumb criteria as
input, let alone the rework interrogator selecting a candidate based on an
ascertainment by the rework assessor and a received input comprising a rule
of thumb criteria. Rather, Perkins' ARPP AS performs engineering analysis
based on data input by a user and a solver associated with an engineering
analysis subroutine selected by the user, and compares the results of the
analysis with acceptable data stored by the selected engineering analysis
program.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8 and 11-15 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent Claim 16 and Dependent Claims 17-20
Independent claim 16 recites language substantially similar to the
language of claim 1 and stands rejected based on the same rationale applied
with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1. The Examiner's rejection of
claim 10 does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-001744
Application 12/961, 123
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6