The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2020005981 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
15/289,477 10/10/2016 Robert C. Griffiths 16-0296-US-NP 5094
63759 7590 12/15/2021
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
LEE, JIMMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2021 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 ROBERT C. GRIFFITHS and MITCHELL D. VOTH
Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
ZADO, 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 1–26. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The instant application relates to a method and apparatus for
monitoring stress on the wings of an aircraft during operation by using a
camera system to detect and measure the movement of targets on the wings.
Spec. ¶¶ 1, 7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. An aircraft monitoring system comprising:
targets associated with a wing of an aircraft;
a camera system configured to generate images of the targets on
the wing during operation of the aircraft; and
a monitor configured to measure a movement of the targets using
the images, enabling identifying wing movement, wherein the
monitor is further configured to identify when a maneuver should
be changed or canceled during flight of an aircraft according to
the movement of the targets.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Feher US 4,816,828 Mar. 28, 1989
Dimsdale US 7,697,748 B2 Apr. 13, 2010
Cheng US 8,330,818 B2 Dec. 11, 2012
Furrer US 2012/0002038 A1 Jan. 5, 2012
Tillotson US 2014/0241572 A1 Aug. 28, 2014
Tillotson2 US 2015/0138355 A1 May 21, 2015
Vialatte US 2016/0037133 A1 Feb. 4, 2016
Fleck US 2017/0259943 A1 Sept. 14, 2017

Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
3
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis
1–4, 7–9, 11–18,
21–24
103 Fleck, Furrer, Vialatte
5, 19 103 Fleck, Furrer, Vialatte, Tillotson
6, 20 103 Fleck, Furrer, Vialatte, Feher
10 103 Fleck, Furrer, Vialatte, Tillotson2
25 103 Fleck, Furrer, Vialatte, Dimsdale
26 103 Fleck, Furrer, Vialatte, Cheng

OPINION
Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown that the combination of
Fleck, Furrer, and Vialatte teaches or suggests a monitor that is “configured
to identify when a maneuver should be changed or canceled during flight of
an aircraft according to the movement of the targets,” as recited in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited recitations in independent
claims 13 and 15. Appeal Br. 5–11. Appellant submits that the rejections of
claims 1–26 should therefore be reversed. For reasons discussed below, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
Discussed in more detail below, Appellant attacks the references
individually, rather than address the combination of prior art references.
Specifically, Appellant does not persuasively address the Examiner’s
findings regarding the combined teachings of Furrer and Vialatte. The test
for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. “Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
4
(citations omitted). Thus, where, as here, the rejections are based upon the
teachings of a combination of references, “[n]on-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually.” In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In
addition, a reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” Id.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Furrer with Vialatte
teaches the claim limitation at issue. Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 18–22. Furrer
relates to measuring deformations of an elastically deformable object, such
as a rotor blade of a wind power plant or of a wing of an aircraft. Furrer,
code (57), ¶ 2. Furrer places an optically detectable marker on the elastically
deformable object, and uses a camera to image the marker and an image
processing device to determine movement of the marker. Id. ¶¶ 12, 53. The
image processing device includes computing means that quantifies deviation
in the position of the marker. Id. If an anomalous deflection is detected,
regulating means may counteract the deformation by initiating adjustments
to control elements. Id. ¶ 57. For example, in the case of a windmill rotor
blade, the system may initiate switching off the windmill blade. Id. ¶ 73.
Vialatte relates to analyzing dynamic flow of an aircraft by installing
flow cones on the aircraft’s wings and using camera images to analyze the
airflow. Vialatte ¶ 3. Vialatte uses imaging technology to detect the
“precise movement of the flow cones” in order to deduce aerodynamic
behavior, which is used by experts to select flight control configuration of,
e.g., the tips and flaps of the aircraft’s wings. Id. ¶ 93.
The Examiner finds the combination of Furrer with Vialatte teaches or
suggests a monitor that is “configured to identify when a maneuver should
be changed or canceled according to the movement of the targets,” because:
Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
5
1) Furrer teaches a monitor that initiates making changes to the operation of
an elastically deformable object (e.g., by switching rotor blades to the off
state) based on the movement of targets placed on the deformable object
(e.g., based on the movement of Furrer’s markers), and 2) Vialatte teaches
changing or canceling maneuvers (e.g., changing flight control movement)
based on the movement of flow cones (e.g., targets). Ans. 18. According to
the Examiner, it would have been obvious in view of these teachings to
change or cancel maneuvers of an aircraft according to movement of targets
placed on the wings of the aircraft. Id. at 18–19; Final Act. 5–7.
Appellant first argues that Fleck does not teach the claim limitation at
issue. Appeal Br. 7. This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error
because the Examiner does not rely on Fleck alone for such teaching. Final
Act. 5–7; Ans. 18–19.
Next, Appellant argues that Furrer does not disclose the limitation at
issue. Appellant acknowledges Furrer’s disclosure of controlling the
aircraft’s flaps and control surfaces based on the amount of deflection of the
wings. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant asserts, without any explanation, that
such disclosure “is not equivalent to” the claimed limitation. Id. at 8. This
assertion, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate Examiner error,
because the mere statement that a disclosure does not satisfy a claim
limitation is not a sufficient argument. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”).
Appellant’s assertion fails to identify any alleged shortcoming of Furrer. As
we discussed above, Furrer discloses changing an aircraft’s flight controls
based on deflections determined according to movement of targets on an
aircraft’s wings. Appellant has not articulated, nor do we discern, why this
Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
6
fails to teach or suggest the claim limitation at issue. Moreover, as we
already discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection is not based on Furrer
alone. Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 18–19.
Appellant also submits that Vialatte does not teach the claim
limitation at issue, because “Vialatte discloses a processor that identifies and
determines positions of cones that have been detected in motion relative to a
previous image.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant makes this bare assertion,
without providing any explanation as to why such disclosure fails to teach
the claim limitation at issue. Id. This assertion, without more, is insufficient
to demonstrate Examiner error, because, as explained above, the mere
statement that a disclosure does not satisfy a claim limitation is not a
sufficient argument. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant also argues
Vialatte does not teach the limitation at issue because humans, rather than
the claimed “monitor” make the determination as to how to configure flight
controls. Appeal Br. 9–10. This argument is not persuasive of Examiner
error because it attacks Vialatte individually and does not address the
combination of Furrer with Vialatte. As we discussed above, rejections that
are based upon the teachings of a combination of references, cannot be
overcome by attacking references individually. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
at 1097.
In addition to arguments that individually address the prior art
references, Appellant also argues that it was improper for the Examiner to
combine Fleck with Furrer. Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, these
references should not be combined because Fleck requires imaging the entire
wing of the aircraft. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Fleck ¶¶ 12, 14–19). Appellant
argues that the combination of Fleck with Furrer would result in placing
Fleck’s camera inside the aircraft’s fuselage. Id. Appellant further submits
Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
7
that Fleck would fail in its intended purpose if the camera was inside the
fuselage. Id. However, Appellant provides no basis for the assertion that
Furrer requires placing a camera inside the fuselage of an aircraft.
Moreover, even if Furrer disclosed placement of a camera inside a fuselage
(which Appellant has not shown), Appellant’s argument essentially is that
the features of one reference cannot be bodily incorporated into another
reference. This argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. As
explained by the Examiner, “the test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 20 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413).
Appellant also asserts that Vialatte is non-analogous art. Appeal
Br. 10. We consider two criteria to determine whether prior art is analogous:
“(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
Appellant does not address either criteria. Appellant states only that “unlike
[the] system [of] claim 1, Vialatte is not taking images of a structure. Rather
Vialatte is monitoring the direction of cones which is rather like the fact that
looking at a weather vane does not tell one anything about the stresses in the
house the weather vane is mounted to.” Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant refers
Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
8
to a feature of the claimed invention (e.g., “a camera system configured to
generate images of the targets on the wing during operation of the aircraft”),
but does not articulate a field of endeavor. Id. Appellant likewise fails to
articulate a field of endeavor of Vialatte. Id. Instead, Appellant merely
states, without providing any basis, that Vialatte is not taking images of a
structure. Id. We disagree. Vialatte expressly discloses using cameras to
film (i.e., taking images) flow cones (i.e., structures). Vialatte ¶ 3.
Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Vialatte appears to be in the
same field of endeavor. The Specification states in the section titled “Field”
that “the present disclosure relates to . . . monitoring stress on an aircraft
during operation of the aircraft using vibrations detected using a camera
system.” Spec. ¶ 1. In the Background of Invention Section, Vialatte states
the “present invention” relates to “acquisition of images relating to an in-
flight test of aerodynamic behaviors of an aircraft, an automatic processing
of these images.” Vialatte ¶ 2. Accordingly, both references relate to
acquiring images in order monitor aircraft behavior. For the foregoing
reasons, Appellant’s argument that Vialatte is non-analogous art does not
persuade us of Examiner error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–26.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2020-005981
Application 15/289,477
9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–9,
11–18, 21–
24
103 Fleck, Furrer,
Vialatte
1–4, 7–9,
11–18, 21–
24

5, 19 103 Fleck, Furrer,
Vialatte, Tillotson
5, 19
6, 20 103 Fleck, Furrer,
Vialatte, Feher
6, 20
10 103 Fleck, Furrer,
Vialatte, Tillotson2
10
25 103 Fleck, Furrer,
Vialatte, Dimsdale
25
26 103 Fleck, Furrer,
Vialatte, Cheng
26
Overall
Outcome
1–26

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED