The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2022

2021002186 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2022)

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. 15/471,422 03/28/2017 Steven P. Walker 16-1910-US-NP 6751 165241 7590 03/25/2022 Quinn IP Law / Boeing 21500 Haggerty Rd Suite 300 Northville, MI 48167 EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1782 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2022 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): adomagala@quinniplaw.com patentadmin@boeing.com usdocketing@quinniplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN P. WALKER, GREGORY M. SANTINI, GARY D. OAKES, and PATRICK B. STICKLER Appeal 2021-002186 Application 15/471,422 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-18. See Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed March 28, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action entered October 15, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed February 7, 2020 and Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief filed February 18, 2020 (Claims Appendix) (collectively referred to as “Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer entered September 3, 2020 (“Ans.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002186 Application 15/471,422 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to a skin panel configured for attachment to an aircraft structure. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims App. 2): 1. A skin panel configured for attachment to an aircraft structure, the skin panel comprising: a material of the skin panel used in constructing the skin panel; a peripheral edge surface of the skin panel, the peripheral edge surface extending entirely around the skin panel, the peripheral edge surface being a continuous surface entirely around the skin panel; an outer surface of the skin panel, the outer surface being entirely surrounded by the peripheral edge surface, the outer surface being a continuous surface within the peripheral edge surface; an inner surface of the skin panel, the inner surface being entirely surrounded by the peripheral edge surface, the inner surface being a continuous surface within the peripheral edge surface, the inner surface being opposite the outer surface on the skin panel, the inner surface being configured for attachment to an aircraft structure; an outer interior region of the material of the skin panel, the outer interior region being inside the skin panel and terminating at the outer surface; an inner interior region of the material of the skin panel, the inner interior region being inside the skin panel and terminating at the inner surface; and, a plurality of cavities inside the material and surrounded by the material of the skin panel, the plurality of cavities being positioned in a single plane Appeal 2021-002186 Application 15/471,422 3 inside the material and between the outer surface and the inner surface. Claim 10 is also independent and recites a skin panel configured for attachment to an aircraft structure. Appeal Br., Claims App. 5. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Dan-Jumbo US 8,851,422 B2 Oct. 7, 2014 REJECTION3 The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dan-Jumbo. Final Act. 3-5. OPINION We confine our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient to dispose of the rejection on appeal. The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Dan-Jumbo, the Examiner found Dan-Jumbo discloses a panel configured for attachment to an aircraft structure, where wing skin 22 disclosed in Dan-Jumbo is an outer surface of the skin panel and wing skin 24 disclosed in Dan-Jumbo is an inner surface of the skin panel, each entirely surrounded by a peripheral edge surface. 3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in the Answer. Ans. 6; see Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-002186 Application 15/471,422 4 Final Act. 3, citing Dan-Jumbo, col. 5, ll. 53-67, col. 6, ll. 1-13, Fig. 2. The Examiner found Dan-Jumbo discloses a plurality of cavities (wing grid structure 34). Id., citing Dan-Jumbo, Fig. 7. The Examiner found that Dan- Jumbo does not explicitly disclose an outer surface or inner surface that are smooth, but Figure 6 of Dan-Jumbo depicts this feature. Id. at 3-4. As a result, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have provided an outer surface and inner surface that are smooth. Id. at 4. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues Dan-Jumbo’s wing skins 22 and 24 are the same “type” of skin panels recited in independent claims 1 and 10, but wing skins 22 and 24 do not have the construction recited in claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br. 7. Rather, Appellant contends wing skins 22 and 24 are comprised of a stack of laminated layers that do not contain cavities as required in independent claims 1 and 10. Id. at 9. Appellant contends that the Examiner has interpreted the entire wing 14 in Dan-Jumbo as a skin panel, which is not a reasonable interpretation of “skin panel” that is consistent with the Specification. Id. at 7-8. Discussion We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner relies on the structure of wing 14 disclosed in Dan-Jumbo, the combination of upper and lower wing skins 22 and 24 and wing-grid structure 34 in order to meet the “skin panel” recited in claim 1. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of “skin panel” to encompass the entire wing structure disclosed in Dan-Jumbo is unreasonable. Appeal 2021-002186 Application 15/471,422 5 As the Federal Circuit has emphasized, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification “is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with the specification.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted, emphasis added). In this case, we are of the view that interpreting “skin panel” to include interior components of an aircraft wing as set forth by the Examiner does not comport with the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1. The Specification describes that a “skin panel” is configured for attachment to an aircraft structure and “then forms the exterior surface of the aircraft that is exposed to the exterior environment of the aircraft.” Spec. ¶ 28. The Specification describes how aircraft wings are typically constructed with ribs and stringers on the interior of the wing, and that stringers are costly and can also lead to panel warpage. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 3. The Specification further describes that the skin panel has a strength that “eliminates the need for stringers in the interior of the aircraft wing.” Id. at ¶ 28. Thus, it is reasonably clear from the Specification that a “skin panel” does not include interior components of an aircraft structure, such as the grid cross beams 42 and wing-grid spars 40 that make up the wing-grid structure 34 in Dan-Jumbo. Dan-Jumbo, col. 8, ll. 50-64, Fig. 7. As a result, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Dan-Jumbo. Independent claim 10 similarly recites “a skin panel” and as such, the Examiner’s position with Appeal 2021-002186 Application 15/471,422 6 respect thereto suffers from the same deficiency as discussed above for claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-18 103 Dan-Jumbo 1-18 REVERSED