Karen L. Hills

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 17, 2020

14886530 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2020)

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.
14/886,530 10/19/2015 Karen L. Hills 15-1605-US-
NP 800-0109US
8633
107112 7590 01/17/2020
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
PERRIN, JOSEPH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2020 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):
docket@splglaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________________
Ex parte KAREN L. HILLS
_____________________
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
Technology Center 1700
_____________________
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–10, 20, and 21 of Application
14/886,530. Final Act. (January 22, 2018). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
2
I. BACKGROUND
The ’530 Application describes systems and methods for refreshing
passenger garments onboard a vehicle such as a commercial aircraft. Spec.
¶ 1. During a passenger flight, some passengers may discover that certain
articles of clothing have become wrinkled, musty, moistened with sweat, or
otherwise compromised, i.e. less than clean and crisp. Id. ¶ 2. Using the
systems and methods described in the ’530 Application, the compromised
garments can be refreshed. Refreshing “may include, for example, warming,
cooling, sanitizing, brushing, removing lint, and the like from various
garment such as clothing, blankets, and the like.” Id. ¶ 3.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’530 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. An aircraft comprising:
a fuselage having an internal cabin; and
a garment refreshing system located within the internal cabin,
wherein the garment refreshing system is positioned
within a closet of the internal cabin,
wherein the garment refreshing system is operable to
refresh a garment of an individual within the internal
cabin.
Appeal Br. 23(emphasis, some paragraphing, and indentation added).
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
3
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over either Schootstra2 or the combination of
Schootstra, Kendall,3 and Tiid.4 Final Act. 3; Answer 3–6.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
either Schootstra or the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid,
and Cross.5 Final Act. 6; Answer 6.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over either Schootstra or
the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Frantz.6 Final
Act. 7; Answer 7.
4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
either Schootstra or the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid,
and Baltes.7 Final Act. 7; Answer 7–8.
5. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and
Tiid. Final Act. 8; Answer 8–9.
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Baltes. Final
Act. 9; Answer 9.

2 US 2014/0224454 A1, published August 14, 2014.
3 US 2007/0256457 A1, published November 8, 2007.
4 US 2007/0063101 A1, published March 22, 2007.
5 US 6,877,248 B1, issued April 12, 2005.
6 US 2005/0211833 A1, published September 29, 2005.
7 US 3,811,198, issued May 21, 1974
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
4
III. DISCUSSION
A. Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 21 as unpatentable over
either Schootstra or the combination of Schootstra, Kendall,
and Tiid
Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection on the basis of
limitations in independent claim 1, from which claims 2, 4, 7, and 21
depend. Appeal Br. 10–13. Appellant also presents an additional argument
for the separate patentability of claim 7. Id. at 13–14. We, therefore, choose
claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 2, 4, and 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1).
Dependent claims 2, 4, and 21 will stand or fall with claim 1. Id. We shall
discuss Appellant’s arguments with respect to dependent claim 7 separately.
1. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 21 as unpatentable
over Schootstra alone
a. Claim 1
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the limitation “wherein the garment refreshing system is
positioned within a closet of the internal cabin.” Appeal Br. 10–13. In
particular, Appellant argues that the Final Action “acknowledges that neither
Schootstra, nor Kendall describes, teaches, or suggests a garment refreshing
system positioned within a closet.” Id. at 10 (citing Final Act. 5).
The Final Action does state that “[n]either [Schootstra nor Kendall]
discloses . . . the garment refreshing system positioned within a closet of the
internal cabinet [sic, cabin], as recited in claims 1 and 5, respectively.” Final
Act. 5; see also Answer 5. The Examiner, however, further explained the
basis for the rejection in the Advisory Action:
Examiner cites SCHOOTSTRA for expressly teaching an
aircraft galley including a washing machine or dryer, which
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
5
reads on the broadly recited “garment refreshing system” as
currently claimed. SCHOOTSTRA does not use the
terminology “closet”, however, taking into consideration the
general knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the
art, it would not be difficult to understand that any closable
component on an aircraft could readily function as a closet
within the manner claimed.
Advisory Action 3.
In sum, the Examiner relies upon the level of ordinary skill in the art
to supply the elements not expressly described in Schootstra. This sort of
rote invocation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is not sufficient to
sustain an obviousness rejection. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”).
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Schootstra alone. We, therefore, also reverse the rejection
of claims 2, 4, and 21.
b. Claim 7
Claim 7 depends, via claim 2, from independent claim 1. Because we
have reversed the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Schootstra alone,
we also reverse the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Schootstra
alone.
2. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 21 as unpatentable
over the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid
a. Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of
Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid, the Examiner found that Schootstra and
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
6
Kendall describe or suggest each limitation of claim 1 except for the
garment refreshing system being located within a closet of the internal cabin.
Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner found that Schootstra describes a
garment refreshing system located in the galley of the interior cabin. Id. The
Examiner also found that Tiid describes floor fittings for fastening a galley
or other elements within the internal cabin of an airplane and that the galley
can comprise cabin components such as a closet. Id. at 5–6; see also Tiid
¶ 12. Based upon these findings, the Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to
provide the galley-mounted washing machine or dryer of
SCHOOTSTRA alone or with KENDAL [sic] (which are
readable on the claimed “refresher”) in an aircraft closet with
floor fitting fasteners as taught by TIID to yield the same and
predictable results of such stowing such galley components
securely in an aircraft.
Id. at 6.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner further explains that
both a garment refreshing system and closet in an aircraft galley
are expressly taught by SCHOOTSTRA and TIID, respectively,
as old and known, and the combination of the two would appear
to produce the same and predictable results of the known
functions of both a closet (for storing items) and a garment
refreshing system (for treating/refreshing garments).
Manifestly, the refresher/dryer of SCHOOTSTRA would be
“stored” or “stowed” in the galley rather than merely sitting
openly in the galley, and thus the combination of using an
aircraft galley storing closet (evidenced as known in the art by
TIID) to store the aircraft galley dryer (evidenced as known in
the art by SCHOOTSTRA) would be prima facie obvious.
Answer 10–11.
Appellant argues that this rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because there is nothing in Tiid that describes, teaches, or suggest
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
7
positioning a garment refreshing system within a closet of an internal cabin
of an aircraft. Appeal Br. 12–13. This argument is not persuasive of
reversible error.
In this case, the Examiner found that the use of Tiid’s closet to contain
Schootstra’s garment refreshing system is the combination of known
elements performing their known functions to yield a predictable result. The
Supreme Court has explained that such combinations are unlikely to be
patentable. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)
(“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Here, Appellant has not identified any error in the Examiner’s
findings or explained any way in which the claimed combination achieves
unpredictable or unexpected results.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2,
4, and 21 as unpatentable over the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and
Tiid.
b. Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 via claim 2. Claim 2 reads:
2. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the garment refreshing
system comprises a housing defining a refreshing compartment,
and one or more refreshers within the refreshing compartment,
wherein the one or more refreshers are operable to refresh the
garment.
Appeal Br. 23.
Claim 7 reads:
7. The aircraft of claim 2, wherein the garment refreshing
system comprises one or more dryers within the refreshing
compartment, wherein the one or more dryers are operable to
dry the garment.
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
8
Id.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over the
combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid should be reversed for the
reasons offered for reversal of the rejection of claim 1. As discussed above,
we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive with respect to claim 1.
We, therefore, also do not find them persuasive with respect to the rejection
of claim 7.
Appellant further argues that claim 7 is patentable because “none of
Schootstra, Kendall, or Tiid (alone or in combination with one another)
describes, teaches, or suggests a housing defining a refreshing compartment
in which both a refresher and a dryer are positioned.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant’s argument, therefore, depends upon the interpretation of
claim 7 as requiring a refreshing compartment in which both a refresher and
a dryer are located. Indeed, Appellant asserts that claim 7 “necessarily
differentiates the dryers from refreshers.” Appeal Br. 13–14; see also Reply
Br. 4.
The Examiner, however, disagrees. See Answer 13. The Examiner
maintains that, as claimed, claim 7’s phrase “one or more dryers” limits the
claim 2’s generic term “one or more refreshers.” Id. In particular, the
Examiner states that claim 7 further limits claim 2 by specifying a species
that falls within the genus recited in claim 2.
We, therefore, are faced with the question of the proper interpretation
of claim 7.
During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account any definitions or other enlightenment provided by the written
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
9
description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, the question we confront is whether the Examiner’s claim
construction is unreasonably broad in view of the ’530 Application’s
Specification.
The ’530 Application’s Specification consistently distinguishes dryers
from refreshers. For example, dryers are omitted from the (non-exclusive)
list of species falling within the genus of refreshers: “The refreshers may
include, for example, one or more of a mister, a steamer, and ultraviolet
light, a centimeter, a deterrent and emitter, a heater, and/or an agitator (such
as a vibrating mechanism).” Spec. ¶ 5. Furthermore, the Specification
characterizes devices that fall within the refresher genus as sanitizing
devices. Id. ¶ 54 (“Further, the refreshers 140 may include various other
type[s] of sanitizing devices other than listed.”). Dryers are not generally
thought of as sanitizing devices.
The Specification consistently discusses dryers as a separate class of
device from refreshers. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 8, 55, 58. Moreover, dryers are
exemplified as fans or blowers. Id. ¶ 55.
Based on the disclosure in the ’530 Application’s Specification,
therefore, we conclude that the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 7 is
unreasonably broad.
Notwithstanding the erroneous claim construction, the Examiner
maintains that claim 7 is unpatentable over the combination of Schootstra,
Kendall, and Tiid. Answer 14. The Examiner notes that Schootstra describes
a garment refreshing system comprising a conventional dryer. According to
the Examiner, such dryers typically include both a heater and a fan or other
type of blower. Id. the ’530 Application’s Specification identifies a heater as
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
10
a species of refresher and a blower as a type of dryer. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 54–
55.
We do not find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive. The ’530
Application’s Specification describes the refreshers and dryers as being
independently operable. Id. ¶ 58. The Examiner did not find, and the record
does not suggest, that the heater and blower portions of Schootstra’s dryer
are independently operable. We, therefore, determine that the Examiner
erred in finding that Schootstra’s dryer contained both a refresher and a
dryer as required by claim 7.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over
the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid.
B. Rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over either Schootstra or
the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Cross
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 3 should be reversed for
the same reasons advanced for reversal of the rejection of claim 1, from
which it depends. Appeal Br. 14.
Because we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Schootstra alone, see § A.1.a, supra, we also reverse the rejection of claim 3
over Schootstra alone.
Similarly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over the
combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid. See § A.2.a, supra.
C. Rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over either Schootstra or
the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Frantz
Claim 5 of the ’530 Application reads:
5. The aircraft of claim 1, further comprising a seat track
and at least one fitting on a floor within the internal cabin, and
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
11
wherein the garment refreshing system securely mounts to the
seat track through at least a portion of the at least one fitting.
Appeal Br. 23.
1. The rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Schootstra
alone
As discussed above, we have reversed the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Schootstra alone. See § A.1.a, supra. Claim 5 depends
from claim 1. We, therefore, also reverse the rejection of claim 5 as
unpatentable over Schootstra alone.
2. The rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over the
combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Frantz
In rejecting claim 5 as unpatentable over the combination of
Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Frantz, the Examiner found that the
combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid discloses each limitation in
claim 5 except for the use of a seat track and fitting on the floor to securely
mount the garment refreshing system. Final Act. 7. The Examiner further
found that “it is old and known in the art to use seat tracks for securely
mounting aircraft components, and particularly galleys (see FRANTZ at
¶ [0018]).” Id.
Based upon these findings, the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide the
aircraft cabin floor fitting to secure the refresher in the
combination of SCHOOTSTRA alone or with KENDALL, and
further with TIID, with a known aircraft cabin securing the
mount such as a seat track as taught in FRANTZ to yield the
same and predictable results of securely mounting a garment
refreshing system in an aircraft cabin.
Id.
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
12
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance upon Frantz is
misplaced and that the Examiner has not explained how a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine all of the references to
arrive at the claimed invention and have had a reasonable expectation of
success in making the combination. Appeal Br. 15–16.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner essentially repeats the Final
Action’s analysis. See Answer 16. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of
reversible error.
Here, the Examiner found that the mounting of the garment refreshing
system suggested by the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid to the
seat track via a fitting as described in Frantz is the combination of known
elements performing their known functions to yield a predictable result. As
we discussed above, the Supreme Court has explained that such
combinations are unlikely to be patentable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Here, Appellant has not identified any error in the Examiner’s
findings or explained any way in which the claimed combination achieves
unpredictable or unexpected results.
Appellant also argues that Frantz teaches away from the claimed
combination. Appeal Br. 16–17. The portion of Frantz relied upon by
Appellant reads: “For aircraft configurations having a section of the
passenger cabin that does not include passenger seating or other aircraft
components (e.g. galleys, cargo containers, partitions, etc.) which may be
coupled to the seat tracks, appropriate floor panels may be installed which
extend continuously over the non-protruding seat tracks.” Frantz ¶ 18.
According to Appellant, this portion of Frantz “expressly teaches away from
a ‘garment refreshing system securely mount[ing] to the seat track through at
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
13
least a portion of the at least one fitting,’ as recited in claim 5.” Appeal Br.
16–17.
This argument is not persuasive for two reasons.
First, the passage in question expressly contemplates attaching an
aircraft component such as a galley to the seat track. All this portion of
Frantz states is that—in areas of the plane where there is neither passenger
seating nor other components coupled to the seat tracks—floor panels may
be installed to cover the unused seat tracks.
Second, even if the passage of Frantz in question could be read as
teaching that an aircraft component such as a galley can be used without
being coupled to the seat tracks, the passage does not amount to a teaching
away from mounting a galley to a seat track. This is because the passage
“does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” mounting a galley to
a seat track via a fitting. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claim 5 as
unpatentable over the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Frantz.
D. Rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over either Schootstra or
the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Baltes
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 8 should be reversed for
the same reasons advanced for reversal of the rejection of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 17.
Because we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Schootstra alone, see § A.1.a, supra, we also reverse the rejection of claim 8
over Schootstra alone.
Similarly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over the
combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid. See § A.2.a, supra.
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
14
E. Rejection of claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over the
combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 9 and 10 should be
reversed for the same reasons advanced for reversal of the rejection of claim
1. Appeal Br. 17.
As discussed above, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over the combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid. See § A.2.a, supra.
F. Rejection of claim 20 as unpatentable over the combination of
Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, and Baltes
Claim 20 of the ’530 Application reads:
20. An aircraft comprising:
a fuselage having an internal cabin; and
at least one fitting on a floor within the internal cabin; and
a garment refreshing system is positioned within a closet
located within the internal cabin, wherein the garment
refreshing system securely mounted to at least a portion of the
at least one fitting through at least one fitting Assembly,
wherein the garment refreshing system is operable to refresh a
garment of an individual within the internal cabin, and wherein
the garment refreshing system comprises:
a housing defining an internal refreshing compartment;
an access door movable between a closed position in
which the refreshing compartment is closed and an open
position in which the refreshing compartment is opened,
wherein the refreshing compartment receives the garment
when the access door is in the open position;
a rack extending into the refreshing compartment,
wherein the garment hangs from the rack;
one or more refreshers within the refreshing compartment
operable to refresh the garment, wherein the one or more
refreshers comprises one or more of a mister, a steamer,
Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
15
an ultraviolet light, a scent emitter, a detergent emitter, a
heater, or an agitator;
one or more dryers operable to dry the garment;
at least one vent operable to control a moisture level
within one or both of the garment refreshing system or
the internal cabin; and
a control unit operatively coupled to a user interface,
wherein the control unit operates the garment refreshing
system based on operating commands input through the
user interface.
Appeal Br. 24–25 (emphasis added).
As claim 20’s language makes clear, the claimed aircraft comprising a
garment refreshing system has both a refresher and a dryer. The Examiner
rejected claim 20 as unpatentable over the combination of Schootstra,
Kendall, Tiid, and Baltes. Final Act. 9. Rather than explaining the basis for
the rejection in detail, the Examiner incorporates by reference the factual
findings and conclusions of law used to reject claims 1–5, 7–10, and 21. Id.
As we explained above, the Examiner erred by finding that the
combination of Schootstra, Kendall, and Tiid describes or suggests a
garment refreshing system comprising both a refresher and a dryer. See
§ A.2.b, supra. The Examiner incorporated the findings and reasoning used
to reject claim 7 into the rejection of claim 20. Final Act. 9. Thus, the
Examiner incorporated the erroneous findings regarding claim 7 into the
rejection of claim 20. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 20.

Appeal 2019-001683
Application 14/886,530
16
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 7, 21 103 Schootstra 1, 2, 4, 7, 21
1, 2, 4, 7, 21 103 Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid 1, 2, 4, 21 7
3 103 Schootstra 3
3 103 Schootstra, Kendall, Cross 3
5 103 Schootstra 5
5 103 Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, Frantz 5
8 103 Schootstra 8
8 103 Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, Baltes 8
9, 10 103 Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid 9, 10
20 103 Schootstra, Kendall, Tiid, Baltes 20
Overall Outcome 1–5, 8–10, 21 7, 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).
AFFIRMED IN PART