Ex Parte Helfrich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

12675238 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
12/675,238 06/11/2010 Felix Helfrich AIRBUS 3.3-186 2927
530 7590 02/02/2017
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
EXAMINER
HAWK, STEVEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
eOfficeAction @ ldlkm. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FELIX HELFRICH, THOMAS SUTTHOFF, and
JO VAN ULBRICH-GASP AREVIC1 2
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Felix Helfrich et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s May 1, 2013 final rejection of claims 1—8, 10, and 11.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Airbus Operations
GmbH. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Nov. 18, 2013).
2 Claim 9 is cancelled. Id. at 24 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention “relates to work and accommodation rooms for pilots in
airplanes.” Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal,
and recites:
1. A secured cockpit with an integratedflight crew rest
compartment with an accommodation area for accommodating
at least one pilot of an aircraft, wherein the cockpit comprises:
a work area comprising equipment necessary for
controlling and piloting the aircraft;
wherein the accommodation area of the flight crew rest
compartment comprises a rest area;
wherein the cockpit and the flight crew rest compartment
are separated from a passenger area of the aircraft by at least one
security partition;
wherein the at least one partition encompasses at least one
of the following properties: bulletproof, entry-proof, fireproof,
access-proof, and explosion proof;
wherein the work area is arranged at a first vertical height;
wherein the rest area comprises at least one sleeping
device;
wherein the sleeping device is arranged at a second
vertical height of the aircraft;
wherein the first vertical height is below the second
vertical height; and
wherein the at least one security partition is adapted to the
contour of the flight crew rest compartment of the cockpit such
that the cockpit and the flight crew rest compartment are at least
one of the following: bulletproof, entry-proof, fireproof, access-
proof, and explosion proof.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1—3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Guering,3 Seiersen,4 and Cloud.5
II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Guering, Seiersen, Cloud, and Gott.6
III. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Guering, Seiersen, Cloud, and Takeshima.7
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Guering, Seiersen, and Cloud— Claims 1—3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11
Appellants argue claims 1—3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 as a group. Appeal
Br. 7—18. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10,
and 11 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Guering discloses a cockpit substantially as
claimed, including work area 8 (with equipment for controlling and piloting
the aircraft) and accommodation area 14 (with sleeping device 23). Final
Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that Seiersen discloses “a work and
accommodation area (100) where the first vertical height of the work area
(112) is below the second vertical height of the sleeping device (134).” Id.
at 3. The Examiner also finds that Cloud discloses secured cockpit 12 with
3 US 7,156,344 Bl, iss. Jan. 2, 2007.
4 US 2007/0125909 Al, pub. June 7, 2007.
5 US 2003/0189131 Al, pub. Oct. 9, 2003.
6 US 1,731,531, iss. Oct. 15, 1929.
7 US 6,676,079, iss. Jan. 13, 2004.
3
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
security partition 6, 10, which is at least bulletproof and entry-proof, and is
adapted to the contour of the cockpit, such that the cockpit is also
bulletproof and entry-proof. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious “to adapt the teachings of Seiersen and Cloud to Guering to
form a secured cockpit with an integrated accommodation area having a
work area below a sleeping device . . . [and] where the module is separated
from the passenger cabin by a partition that is bulletproof and entry-proof.”
Id. The Examiner concludes that such a modification provides a “rest
module in communication with the flight deck that has a highly space
efficient structure” and “reduce[s] or substantially eliminate[s] the
possibility that a person gains unauthorized access to the flight deck to gain
control of the aircraft.” Id.
Appellants have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s rejection.
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Guering does not
disclose a “cockpit with an integrated flight crew rest compartment,” as
recited in claim 1, because “a cabin 14 and a flight deck 2A separated by a
floor 2A and accessible through only one opening 12, as in Guering, cannot
be considered as ‘integrated[.]’ . . . There is neither ‘structural integration’
nor ‘functional integration’ between the flight deck 8 and the private
cabin 14.” Appeal Br. 9; see also id. at 8—11; Reply Br. 3^4 (filed May 23,
2014).
During examination, “claims ... are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
4
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Therefore,
the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain
meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). An appropriate definition of “integrated,” in the
context of the claim language, is “form[ed], coordinate [d], or blend[ed] into
a functioning or unified whole.”8
Although Appellants argue that Guering’s rest area and cockpit are
not integrated, Appellants do not provide evidence to support a different
construction of this term. Indeed, Appellants’ reference to structural and
functional integration is not accompanied by any reference to the
Specification or other evidence. See Appeal Br. 9. Further, Appellants’
Specification does not define the term and, instead, broadly describes the
claimed integration as “mak[ing] it possible to preclude any contact between
the passengers and cockpit crew” and “yield[ing] a protecting sleeping area
for the crew inside the former cockpit.” Spec. 4, 16—17; Appeal Br. 10—11.
Therefore, Appellants’ Specification is not inconsistent with the plain
meaning of the term.
So construed, Guering’s rest compartment 14 is integrated with
cockpit 8. Guering explains that flight deck 8 and private cabin 14 are “in
communication . . . through said opening 12 made in the floor 2A.”
Guering, 3:5—8; see also id. at 2:64—3:1 (describing a “communication
passage between the flight deck 8 and the storage compartment 11”),
8 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 628 (1985) (“integrate”); see
also Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/integrate (last visited Jan. 26, 2017) (same).
5
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
Figs. 1—2 (depicting opening 12 as it relates to flight deck 8 and cabin 14).
Such communication between the two spaces forms a functioning or unified
whole, and achieves Appellants’ stated purpose of precluding contact
between the passengers and the cockpit crew, such that the cockpit crew has
a protected sleeping area. Indeed, Guering specifies that “pilots may pass
directly from the flight deck into the private cabin, and vice versa, without
passing through the passenger cabin,” which “isolate[s] all the flight crews
from the rest of the aircraft by geographically grouping the pilots’ flight
function and rest function together.” Id. at 1:31—36.
Appellants also argue that Guering’s cockpit and rest cabin are not
“separated from a passenger area ... by at least one security partition,”
because “[tjhere is no real connection between the private cabin 14 and the
passenger cabin 10, and therefore, partitions 6, 7 cannot be considered as
separating the private cabin 14 from the passenger cabin 10.” Appeal
Br. 9-11. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. As seen in
Guering’s Figures 1—2, rest cabin 14 is only accessible from passenger
area 10 by passing through partitions 6, 7 and through opening 12.
Therefore, rest cabin 14 is separated from the passenger area as claimed.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ additional argument that the
Examiner’s combination “directly contradicts” Guering’s teachings. Appeal
Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 5—7. Although Guering describes disadvantages
associated with placing a rest area and sleeping device “behind the cockpit,”
this is not the modification proposed by the Examiner. See Guering, 1:10—
40; Final Act. 3 (modifying Guering to place “a work area below a sleeping
device,” but not placing a sleeping device behind the work area, as
6
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
Appellants argue); Ans. 2-4. Appellants also argue that “moving the private
cabin 14 . . . behind the cockpit. . . would in fact be an inefficient use of
space,” in contrast to the Examiner’s stated rationale of improving space
efficiency. Appeal Br. 12. However, this argument is not well taken
because, again, it misstates the Examiner’s modification. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 2—\. Appellants have not presented any persuasive evidence or
technical reasoning to suggest that moving the rest area with a sleeping
device above a work area, as the Examiner actually proposes, would present
the same space inefficiencies. Further, the Examiner’s stated rationale of
improving space efficiency is supported by the evidence of record. See, e.g.,
Seiersen | 7 (discussing space efficiency), 131 (disclosing space efficiencies
associated with placing sleeping devices at a high vertical position).
Ans. 2—3.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
overlooks the difference between pilot and crew rest areas, that Seiersen’s
crew rest area is not integrated with a cockpit, and that Seiersen’s crew rest
area is associated with an “entrance module,” not a work area with
equipment for controlling the aircraft. Appeal Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 4—5.
Guering discloses a pilot rest area 14 that is integrated with flight deck 8
(“work area”), wherein flight deck 8 includes equipment for controlling the
aircraft. Final Act. 2—3; Guering, 1:31—36, 2:97—3:8, Fig. 1. Seiersen is
relied upon merely to alter the relative positions of flight deck 8 and rest
area 14, such that the work area is below the rest area. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 2—3. Therefore, it is immaterial that Seiersen’s rest area is intended for
use by crew, is not integrated with the cockpit, or is placed above an
7
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
“entrance module” instead of a work area. Seiersen discloses advantages to
placing the rest area at an increased vertical height, e.g., space efficiencies
(Seiersen 131), which supports the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Guering to
place rest area 14 at a vertical height above work area 8, as claimed.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that the combination of
references does not render obvious a bulletproof security partition that
separates the cockpit and rest compartment from a passenger area, as
claimed, because Cloud does not specify that wall 6 possesses the same
ballistic resistant properties as door 10. Appeal Br. 15—18; Reply Br. 7.
Although Cloud does not specify expressly the material of wall 6, in which
door 10 is located, the Examiner reasons that “extending the bulletproof
nature and materials of the flight deck door (10) of Cloud to encompass the
entire security partition including the door (10) and the flight deck wall (6)
would simply be a matter of design choice,” and would “reduce or
substantially eliminate the possibility that a person gains unauthorized
access to the flight deck to gain control of the aircraft.” Final Act. 9. The
Examiner also concludes that it is “within the general skill of a worker in the
art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended
use as a matter of obvious design choice.” Id. (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d
197 (CCPA I960)); see also Ans. 4—5.
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion. Cloud discloses that
cockpit 12 is secured from a passenger area by bulletproof door 10, which is
located within wall 6. Cloud 118, Fig. 1. Cloud specifies that a bulletproof
door helps to prevent an intruder from accessing the cockpit. Id. ^5, 19.
8
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
Although Cloud does not specify expressly that the wall in which the door is
located is also bulletproof, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious to make wall 6 bulletproof as well, to further
reduce the possibility that a person gains access to the flight deck or
otherwise harms the flight crew. Id.', Final Act. 9. Increasing the bulletproof
nature of the barrier between the cockpit and passenger area further serves
Cloud’s explicit purpose of preventing unauthorized access to the cockpit.
Cloud 15. Indeed, without extending the bulletproof properties to wall 6, an
intruder could simply discharge a firearm immediately adjacent door 10, at
wall 6, to access the cabin, rendering the bulletproof door entirely
ineffective.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11.
Obviousness over Guering, Seiersen, Cloud, and Gott — Claim 4
Appellants contend that Gott does not cure the deficiencies in the
Examiner’s combination of Guering, Seiersen, and Cloud. Appeal
Br. 18—19. However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner’s rejection in light of those references is deficient. Accordingly,
Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 4, and
we affirm that rejection.
Obviousness over Guering, Seiersen, Cloud, and Takeshima — Claim 6
Appellants contend that Takeshima does not cure the deficiencies in
the Examiner’s combination of Guering, Seiersen, and Cloud. Appeal Br.
19-20. However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that the
9
Appeal 2014-006706
Application 12/675,238
Examiner’s rejection in light of those references is deficient. Accordingly,
Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 6, and
we affirm that rejection.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—8, 10, and 11 are AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED
10