Ex Parte Axford

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2016

13297581 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/297,581 11/16/2011
23117 7590 11/14/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy AXFORD
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5065-134 6075
EXAMINER
DINH, TIEN QUANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY AXFORD
Appeal 2014-009636
Application 13/297,581
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Timothy Axford (Appellant) 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1and3-16.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Airbus Operations
Limited. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claim 2 is cancelled, and claims 1 7-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
See Amendment (Sept. 9, 2013).
Appeal2014-009636
Application 13/297,581
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below
and is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
l, An aircraft stn1cture comprising:
(i) a skin panel, having;
- an outer surface forming: an external face of the
<>
structure, and
- an inner surface inten1al to the stn1cture;
(ii) a plurality of stringers extending along a length of the
inner surface of the skin paneL wherein each stringer is a discrete
elernent of the structure; and
(iii) an inner panel spaced apart from the inner surface of
the skin pane1 and being internal to the structure, so as to form
an internal cavity adjacent to the skin panel, \vherein the stringers
are located within the cavity.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Wagner
Wright
Krohn
Evans
Boeing
us 2,241,972
us 2,734,586
us 3,195,841
us 5,360,500
EP 2 008 807 A2
REJECTIONS
May 13, 1941
Feb. 14, 1956
July 20, 1965
Nov. 1, 1994
Dec. 31, 2008
I. Claims 1, 3-5, 11-14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Wagner. Final Act. 2-5.
II. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wagner and Wright. Id. at 5-6.
III. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wagner and Boeing. Id. at 7.
2
Appeal2014-009636
Application 13/297,581
IV. Claims 5 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wagner and Evans. Id. at 8-9.
V. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wagner and Krohn. Id. at 9.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Wagner discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1, including "a plurality of stringers 14 extending along a
length of the inner surface of the skin panel." Final Act. 2. The Examiner
also finds that "each stringer is a discrete element of the structure [as] is
shown in ... [F]igure 1." Id. As to the plurality of stringers, the Examiner's
position is that "all of the stringers are formed with the sheet 14." Ans. 11.
The Examiner continues that "each of the stringers is used at different
locations to provide support and strength as desired at those locations and
hence the stringers as a whole cannot be interpreted as a mere single stringer
because a sheet is used to form the stringers." Id. at 11-12. Accordingly,
we understand the Examiner's position to be that the plurality of stringers
are the plurality of corrugations of single corrugated metal sheet 14. 3
Addressing this understanding of the Examiner's rejection, we further
understand the Examiner's position to be premised on an interpretation of
"discrete" as "apart, separate, or distinct," with the stringers being "separate,
3 The Examiner suggests an alternative position, which we will later address
herein, in which the plurality of stringers are two separate corrugated panels.
Ans. 12 (citing annotated Figure 1 of Wagner, in which a "[t]op stringer"
and "bottom stringer" are identified, and stating that "[a]s an aside,
[A ]ppellant failed to see that there are at least two 'stringers' shown in
[F]igure 1 ").
3
Appeal2014-009636
Application 13/297,581
distinct, or apart from structural parts such as leading edge, trailing edge,
strips etc." Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 10-11 ("The claimed limitation
merely state[s] that 'each stringer is a discrete element of the (aircraft)
structure.' 'Aircraft structure' is broadly interpreted to mean any structure
forming the aircraft. This could mean the leading and trailing edge, the
bolts, strips, etc. of the wing shown in [F]igures 1--4. Plus, broadly
interpreting this limitation, each of the stringer[ s] can be a discrete element
of the fuselage, door, etc. of the aircraft."). The Examiner states that the
claims are not so narrow as to require that the "stringer[ s] are 'self-
contained' parts that are not directly connected or integral to other
stringers." Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 10 ("'Each stringer is a discrete
element of the structure' does not mean that each stringer is discrete from
other stringer[ s] as [Appellant] appear[ s] to argue.") (emphasis omitted).
Appellant responds that the claim requires the plurality of stringers to
be distinct "with respect to both the aircraft structure and the other stringers
(as the claim requires also a 'plurality of stringers' each of which is a
discrete element of the structure)." Reply Br. 3. In other words, Appellant
argues that "each stringer is [itself] part of the aircraft structure (see the
claim preamble)" relative to which each stringer must be discrete. Id. at 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's interpretation of the claim-in
which each of the plurality of stringers need only be discrete relative to a
subset of the aircraft structure (i.e., the leading edge, trailing edge, bolts,
strips, fuselage, door), as opposed to all the aircraft structure (i.e., including
other stringers }-is erroneous.
Alternatively, the Examiner relies on a broader interpretation of
"discrete" as "not being the same or not identical," which does not require
4
Appeal2014-009636
Application 13/297,581
an element of separation. Final Act. 10. Using this interpretation, the
Examiner finds that because "each stringer is clearly shown to be NOT
identical, the stringers are distinct or discrete" from each other. Id. The
Patent and Trademark Office gives claims their broadest reasonable
construction "in light of the [S]pecification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
13 59, 13 64 (Fed. Cir. 2004 ). The Specification describes that "[h ]aving the
stringers as discrete elements means they can be manufactured separately
and so can be more easily managed than for bigger components" and
provides that "a single damaged stringer can be replaced, without needing all
the stringers to be replaced." Reply Br. 5 (quoting Spec. 5:29--6:5).
We determine that the Examiner's interpretation of "discrete" that
would extend to components making up a single, continuous structure,
merely because the individual components of that structure are not identical,
is not reasonable in the context of the Specification. Rather, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "discrete" consistent with the Specification
requires an element of separation or detachment between the components.
Therefore, we determine that the Examiner erred in finding that Wagner
discloses an aircraft structure comprising a plurality of stringers, where each
stringer is a discrete element of the structure under the broadest reasonable
interpretation.
To the extent that the Examiner's position is not that the plurality of
stringers are the plurality of corrugations of corrugated metal sheet 14, but
rather top and bottom corrugated metal sheets (Ans. 12 (discussing an
annotated version of Wagner, Fig. 1)), we are not persuaded that the
Examiner has adequately addressed how such a position comports with the
5
Appeal2014-009636
Application 13/297,581
remainder of the claim limitations. For example, the Examiner has not
explained, and we do not independently discern, how the top and bottom
corrugated metal sheets of Figure 1 of Wagner are both located within a
cavity formed between the inner surface of the skin panel and an inner panel
spaced apart from the inner surface of the skin panel, as required by claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.); see also Reply Br. 4--5.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
nor claims 3-5, 11-14, and 16, which depend therefrom, as anticipated by
Wagner.
Rejections 11-V
The rejection of claims 5-10 and 15 rely on the Examiner's erroneous
finding that Wagner discloses an aircraft structure comprising a plurality of
stringers, in which each stringer is a discrete element and is located within a
cavity formed between an inner panel and an inner surface of the skin panel.
Final Act. 5-9. The Examiner does not explain how Wright, Boeing, Evans,
and/or Krohn cure this underlying deficiency. Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of: claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable over Wagner and
Wright, claims 8-10 as unpatentable over Wagner and Boeing; claims 5 and
8-10 as unpatentable over Wagner and Evans; and claim 15 as unpatentable
over Wagner and Krohn.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-16 is reversed.
REVERSED
6