The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2020005724 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
15/459,596 03/15/2017 Kenneth H. Griess 14-0993-US-DIV 7596
63759 7590 09/14/2021
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
WEYDEMEYER, ETHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2021 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH H. GRIESS and JACK J. ESPOSITO
Appeal 2020-005724
Application 15/459,596
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 and 18–22. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005724
Application 15/459,596

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention is directed to a composite filler of multiple layers.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with
emphasis added to highlight the key limitation in dispute:
1. A composite filler comprising:
a cross-sectional shape; and
a number of layers of composite material, each of the number
of layers of the composite material having fibers in plane with
the cross-sectional shape, wherein the number of layers of
composite material are stacked in a direction parallel to a
longitudinal axis of the composite filler.
Independent claims 9 and 18 also recite a composite filler and share
the same disputed claim language as in claim 1. Appeal Brief Claims
Appendix 13, 14.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
George US 2003/0044570 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
Brown US 2006/0249868 A1 Nov. 9, 2006
Anderson US 2013/0105072 A1 May 2, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9–11, 13, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Anderson. Final Act. 2.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 18, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined prior art of Anderson with Brown. Final
Act. 4, 7, 8.
Appeal 2020-005724
Application 15/459,596

3
Claims 6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined prior art of Anderson and George. Final
Act. 5–7.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined prior art of Anderson, Brown, and George. Final Act. 10.
OPINION
Appellant’s main argument is that the Examiner is taking an
unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim language “stacked in a
direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the composite filler” (Appeal Br.
6–7; generally Reply Br.). In construing claims, “the PTO must give claims
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . .
Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for
claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health
& Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may
amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution
creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id.2
Appellant has not directed us to any limiting definition in the
Specification for the disputed claim language. Nor is this disputed claim
language explicitly set out in the Specification. Instead, Appellant relies

2 Cf. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (in prosecution
before the PTO “[i]t is the applicants’ burden to precisely define the
invention, not the PTO’s.”). The purpose of this requirement is to provide
the public with adequate notice of the boundaries of protection involved.
The time to do so is during prosecution where an applicant has the ability to
amend the claims to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the
claimed invention. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1210–12
(BPAI 2008).
Appeal 2020-005724
Application 15/459,596

4
upon the embodiment of Fig. 8 to support the disputed claimed limitation
(Appeal Br. 3). The Specification states that the descriptions therein are
merely illustrative embodiments and non-limiting (Spec. ¶¶ 12, 117). Thus,
Appellant’s argument has not shown error in the Examiner’s determination
that claim 1 encompasses Anderson’s composite filler layers, which may
also be viewed as stacked “in a direction parallel to the longitudinal
direction of the composite filler” for reasons explained by the Examiner
(e.g., Ans. 13–14).
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
position that one of ordinary skill would have reasonably inferred from
Anderson’s disclosure a composite filler as claimed (e.g., Ans. 12–14)). In
re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In determining whether a
reference anticipates the subject matter recited in a claim, “it is proper to
take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.”) Appellant has not directed our attention to persuasive reasoning
or evidence to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation of Anderson’s
disclosure is unreasonable.
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of various
other claims based on Anderson with Brown or Anderson with George,
Appellant relies upon the same argument discussed above which fails to take
into account the breadth of the claim language (Appeal Br. 8–10). Thus,
Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness
determinations for reasons similar to those above.
Accordingly, all of the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections are
affirmed.
Appeal 2020-005724
Application 15/459,596

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 7, 9–
11, 13, 14,
21
102(a)(1) Anderson 1, 4, 5, 7, 9–
11, 13, 14,
21

2, 3, 12, 18,
19, 22
103 Anderson, Brown 2, 3, 12, 18,
19, 22

6, 8, 15 103 Anderson, George 6, 8, 15
20 103 Anderson, Brown,
George
20
Overall
Outcome
1–15, 18–22
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