THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020005438 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021)

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.
15/690,338 08/30/2017 Brian J. Tillotson 17-0200-US-NP (800-229) 4481
107112 7590 09/02/2021
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
1423 Strassner Dr.
Suite 100
Brentwood, MO 63144
EXAMINER
CLEVELAND, TIMOTHY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1774
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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 BRIAN J. TILLOTSON
__________

Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejections of
claims 1–7, 9–12, and 14–22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to systems and methods for
sanitizing surfaces with ozone-disrupting ultraviolet light within lavatories
of commercial aircraft (Spec. ¶ 1).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company (Appeal Br. 4).
Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338

2
Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative (emphases added):
1. An ultraviolet (UV) light sanitizing system that is
configured to sanitize a surface of a component, the UV light
sanitizing system comprising:
a UV light assembly including a UV light source that is
configured to emit UV light onto the surface of the component;
and
an airflow generator that is configured to generate
airflow within a region of UV light emission between the UV
light source and the surface of the component,
wherein the airflow generator comprises a fan assembly
including at least one fan operatively coupled to at least one
actuator, wherein the fan assembly directly blows air towards,
onto and subsequently away from the UV light assembly and
the surface of the component.
7. The UV light sanitizing system of claim 6, wherein the
UV light control unit is configured to activate the airflow
generator before the UV light source is activated during the
sanitizing cycle.
Appeal Br. 22, 23 (Claims App.).
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–6, 9–12, 14–16, 18, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Dobrinsky et al. (US
2016/0128526 A1, published May 12, 2016, “Dobrinsky”) (Final Act.
2–4).
2. Claims 7, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dobrinsky (Final Act. 4–5).
Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338

3
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1–6, 9–12, 14–16, 18, 19, and 22 under § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Dobrinsky
Appellant argues the subject matter common to independent claims 1
and 11 (Appeal Br. 9–15). Appellant makes substantially the same
arguments for claims 1 and 11 (Appeal Br. 9–15). Therefore, we select
claim 1 as representative of the claims argued on appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Any claim not argued separately with regard to the
anticipation rejection will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to an ultraviolet (“UV”) light sanitizing system
comprising, in relevant part, “a fan assembly,” which “directly blows air
towards, onto and subsequently away from the UV light assembly and the
surface of the component.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). The Specification
describes that the claimed component may be a toilet within the lavatory of
an aircraft (Spec. ¶ 47).
Dobrinsky’s Figure 5C illustrates a toilet seat cover embodiment:

Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338

4
Dobrinsky’s Figure 5C reproduced above illustrates an embodiment of
a toilet seat cover 16 including section 60A located directly adjacent to a
seat and including fluid inlet 62A; section 60B including UV light sources
22; and section 60C including fan 68B, which circulates the air exiting air
pipe 66 (Dobrinsky ¶¶ 61, 62).
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 is based on, inter
alia, the interpretation of claim 1 where the claimed “fan assembly” is read
to include Dobrinsky’s “combined structure of air pipe 66 and fan 68B”
(Ans. 6).
Appellant contends that Dobrinsky teaches away from blowing the air
onto the UV light sources 22 because Figures 5A and 5B depict a spatial
separation of the light sources from the air outlet (Appeal Br. 11).
According to Appellant, Dobrinsky teaches that the separation is needed to
avoid degrading the UV light sources 22 with heated air (Appeal Br. 11).
Appellant’s argument that Dobrinsky’s arranged separation of light
sources from the air outlet teaches away from claim 1 is unpersuasive
because “[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange Int’l, Inc.
v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Celeritas
Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(explaining that prior art that teaches away from the claimed invention can
also anticipate the claims based on what it discloses.).
With regard to the Examiner’s relied-upon Figure 5C of Dobrinsky,
Appellant contends that fan 68B cannot directly blow air towards, onto, and
then away from both UV light sources 22 and the surface of the seat because
air is introduced onto the seat from air pipe 66 (Appeal Br. 11 (citing
Dobrinsky ¶ 61)). Appellant argues that Dobrinsky does not describe “that
Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338

5
air is directly blown towards and onto the UV light sources 22” (Appeal Br.
11). Appellant notes that fan 68B is located between UV light sources 22
and the seat (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant argues that the air circulated by fan
68B “can only blow air in one direction as it rotates” (Appeal Br. 12).
Appellant contends that even assuming that fan 68B directly blows air
towards UV light sources 22, fan 68B “is incapable of directly blowing air
towards and onto both the UV light sources 22 and the seat” (Appeal Br. 12;
Reply Br. 3).
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
Appellant does not refute the Examiner’s broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 1 in which the claimed “fan assembly” is read to
include Dobrinsky’s “combined structure of air pipe 66 and fan 68B”
(compare Ans. 6 with generally Reply Br. 2–4). Dobrinsky depicts fan
assembly component air pipe 66 directing air to the surface of the toilet seat
component as claimed (Dobrinsky Fig. 5C). To the extent Appellant asserts
that air circulated from fan 68B is blown in only one direction, Appellant
presents attorney argument unsupported by evidence. As shown in Figure
5C, each blade is oriented vertically such that the rotation of fan 68B’s
blades displaces air in at least two directions away from each blade’s: (i)
bottom edge onto the seat and (ii) top edge onto UV light sources 22. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that air exiting air pipe 66 and circulated by fan
68B “would necessarily contact the UV light sources and the seat” (Ans. 6).
Appellant argues that the Specification describes advantages and
unexpected results achieved by blowing air directly onto surfaces to disrupt
ozone formation (Appeal Br. 12).
Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338

6
However, it is a principle of patent law that unexpected results cannot
form the basis to overcome a rejection over a reference that anticipates. See,
e.g., In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302 (CCPA 1974); In re Wiggins, 488
F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973).
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1–6, 9–12,
14–16, 18, 19, and 22 as anticipated by Dobrinsky.
Rejection of claims 7, 17, 20, and 21 under § 103 as unpatentable over
Dobrinsky
Appellant offers separate arguments in support of independent claim
20 and separately argues the subject matter common to dependent claims 7,
17, and 21 (Appeal Br. 15–20). Appellant makes substantially the same
arguments against claims 7, 17, and 21 (Appeal Br. 18–20). Therefore, we
select claim 7 as representative of the dependent claims separately argued on
appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 7 and 20 will be discussed
separately. Claims 17 and 21 will stand or fall with our analysis of the
rejection of claim 7.
Claim 20
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Dobrinsky as
applied to claim 20 are located on page 4 of the Final Office Action.
Appellant argues independent claim 20 (Appeal Br. 16–18). With
respect to Appellant’s argument that Dobrinsky’s Figures 5A and 5B teach
away from blowing the air onto the UV light sources 22 (Appeal Br. 16), we
are not persuaded because the Examiner’s obviousness rejection does not
rely on these figures (Ans. 5).
Appellant argues that claim 20 is nonobvious because the
Specification describes advantages and unexpected results achieved by
Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338

7
blowing air directly onto surfaces to disrupt ozone formation (Appeal Br.
17–18 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 36–39)).
Appellant, however, has not compared the claimed invention with the
closest prior art (i.e., Dobrinsky’s UV-based air-flowing bathroom surface
sanitization system). See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of
nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with
the closest prior art.”).
Appellant’s remaining argument relies on the same unpersuasive
argument made with regard to the § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 over
Dobrinsky (Appeal Br. 16–18). Appellant argues that “Dobrinsky does not
expressly or necessarily . . . teach, or suggest that the air is directly blown
towards and onto the UV light sources 22” (Appeal Br. 16). We are
unpersuaded by this argument for the same reasons discussed above.
Therefore, claim 20 falls with our analysis of the § 102(a)(1) rejection of
claim 1. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (anticipation is
the ultimate or epitome of obviousness).
Claim 7
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Dobrinsky as
applied to claim 7 are located on pages 4 to 5 of the Final Office Action.
The Examiner finds Dobrinsky teaches that the UV light sources and
the air circulation devices are separately controlled by the control system
(Final Act. 4). In view of the Specification’s lack of disclosure of any new
or unexpected benefit, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
activated the airflow generator so that the toilet seat is dried after a liquid
Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338

8
washing process and debris is removed before the UV light source is
activated for sterilization (Final Act. 4–5).
Appellant argues that the recited “limitations are by no means an
obvious design choice or obvious control technique” because the
Specification describes that the claimed activation sequence allows “airflow
generator 106 to achieve a full operational speed before UV light is emitted
from the UV light source” (Appeal Br. 18 (citing Spec. ¶ 32)). Appellant
contends that the Examiner’s rejection is reversibly erroneous because it is
not based on any concrete evidence (Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 5).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, our review of the Examiner’s
relied-upon teachings finds that Dobrinsky reasonably suggests activating an
airflow generator before a UV light source during a sanitizing cycle (Ans. 6
(citing Dobrinsky ¶ 80 (disclosing that computer system 120 can operate the
UV light sources and an air source); id. ¶ 82 (describing that “control system
111 can adjust one or more aspects of a wash/dry schedule” and “an
ultraviolet radiation schedule.”))). Furthermore, Appellant has not shown
that the alleged benefit conferred to airflow generator 106 is a new or
unexpected benefit.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 7 as obvious over
Dobrinsky.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9–12,
14–16, 18,
19, 22
102(a)(1) Dobrinsky
1–6, 9–12,
14–16, 18,
19, 22

Appeal 2020-005438
Application 15/690,338

9
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7, 17, 20,
21 103 Dobrinsky
7, 17, 20,
21
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–12,
14–22
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED