Ex Parte Koreis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

14494131 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/494,131 09/23/2014
104057 7590 06/04/2018
Evans & Dixon, LLC
211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500
Metropolitan Square
St.Louis, MO 63102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rocke R. Koreis
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.
14-0504-US-NP (10623-39) 1095
EXAMINER
HIJAZ, OMAR F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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
ip@evans-dixon.com
jrolnicki@evans-dixon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROCKE R. KOREIS
Appeal2017-010026
Application 14/494,131
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, SEAN P. O'HANLON, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated November 30, 2016
("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1 and 4--7. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, The Boeing Company, which is identified as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 10, 12, and 13 are allowed, and claims 8 and 9 are objected to.
Final Act. 1 (Office Act. Summ.).
Appeal2017-010026
Application 14/ 494, 131
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosure "pertains to an aircraft cabin subfloor
construction where flow paths are provided through the subfloor to vent air
pockets trapped beneath an air impermeable floor mat and the subfloor when
the floor mat is adhered to the sub floor." Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 1 is representative, and is reproduced below:
1. An aircraft cabin subfloor comprising:
a first rigid sheet having opposite top and bottom surfaces,
the first rigid sheet having a plurality of flow paths through the
first rigid sheet;
an air impermeable mat having a top surface that is a
carpet surface of the aircraft cabin subfloor and an opposite
bottom surface, the bottom surface of the air impermeable mat
opposes and is secured to the top surface of the first rigid sheet
with an air filled void between the bottom surface of the air
impermeable mat and the top surface of the first rigid sheet;
the plurality of flow paths through the first rigid sheet are
configured to vent the air filled void to an exterior of the aircraft
cabin subfloor; and,
a pattern of adhesive applied between the bottom surface
of the air impermeable mat and the top surface of the first rigid
sheet, the pattern of adhesive securing the bottom surface of the
air impermeable mat to the top surface of the first rigid sheet and
the pattern of adhesive surrounding the air filled void between
the bottom surface of the air impermeable mat and the top surface
of the first rigid sheet.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 4---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA") and Wang (US
2009/0176050 Al, published July 9, 2009).
2
Appeal2017-010026
Application 14/ 494, 131
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
AAPA, Wang, and Murray (US 2002/0094412 Al, July 18, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1 and 4--6 as a group.
Appeal Br. 3---6. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 4---6 stand
or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
For claim 1, the Examiner finds that AAPA discloses an aircraft cabin
subfloor, but does not disclose that first rigid sheet 4 has a plurality of flow
paths therethrough, and where those flow paths are configured to vent air
filled void 8 to an exterior of the aircraft cabin subfloor. Final Act. 3--4
(citing Spec. ,r,r 3--4, Fig. 2). The Examiner finds, however, that Wang
teaches a carpet including a first rigid sheet (bottom layer 11) having a
plurality of flow paths (ventilation holes 111) configured to vent an air filled
void to an exterior, and determines that, in the combination, the ventilation
holes in the first rigid sheet of AAP A would vent the air filled void to an
exterior. Id. at 4 (citing Wang ,r 20, Fig. 2). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify the aircraft subfloor assembly of AAP A
to include the features of Wang "to avoid problems caused by poor
ventilation." Id.
Appellant contests the Examiner's finding that element 11 of the
carpet disclosed in Wang corresponds to the claimed "first rigid sheet having
a plurality of flow paths through the first rigid sheet." Appeal Br. 4. Rather,
Appellant contends, paragraph 20 of Wang describes bottom layer 11 as
made from plastic or rubber, and Wang does not disclose that bottom layer
3
Appeal2017-010026
Application 14/ 494, 131
11 is "a first rigid sheet." Id. Appellant further contends bottom layer 11 is
flexible. Id. at 5. Appellant contends Figures 1 and 3 of Wang show that
bottom layer 11 "can be easily folded up at its comer." Id.
The Examiner responds that the claimed first rigid sheet is taught by
subfloor element 4 of AAP A shown in Figures 1 and 2. Ans. 2. The
Examiner determines that subfloor element 4 is rigid because it would have
to be a rigid structure for the buckling of floor mat 2 shown in Figure 2 to
occur. Id. at 2-3. The Examiner explains that Wang is used only to modify
the rigid surface of AAP A to have ventilation flowpaths 111 in a mat
subsurface. Id. at 2.
Appellant's contention does not apprise us of any error in the
Examiner's finding that subfloor element 4 is rigid, and, consequently, the
Examiner's position that the combination of AAPA and Wang would
include a "first rigid sheet" "having a plurality of flow paths through the first
rigid sheet," as claimed.
Appellant contends that relying on Wang's disclosure to modify the
aircraft sub floor of AAP A would "most likely" result in carpet 1 of Wang
replacing floor mat 2, rather than subfloor top surface 4, of AAP A. Appeal
Br. 5. Appellant further contends that an ordinary skilled artisan, having
knowledge of Wang and faced with the problem of ventilating the area
between the bottom surface of a floor mat and a top surface of a first rigid
sheet of a sub floor, would most likely use Wang's carpet having ventilation
holes to cover the top surface of the first rigid sheet of AAP A, rather than
provide ventilation holes through the first rigid sheet. Reply Br. 2.
According to Appellant, using carpet 11 to cover over the top surface of the
4
Appeal2017-010026
Application 14/ 494, 131
first rigid sheet of the sub floor would "'provide the proper ventilation and
avoid further problems caused by poor ventilation."' Id.
These contentions are not persuasive. Even if AAP A alternatively
could be modified by replacing floor mat 2 with Wang's carpet 1, as
Appellant suggests, Appellant does not persuasively address the Examiner's
proposed modification of AAP A. The proposed modification would result
in the subfloor top surface 4 of AAP A including ventilation holes as taught
by Wang. Wang teaches that ventilation holes 111 allow air to be ventilated
through bottom layer 11. See, e.g., Wang ,r 22. These ventilation holes
would likewise be expected to allow air ventilation in subfloor top surface 4
of AAPA in the Examiner's combination. The Examiner determines that the
proposed modification would address problems caused by poor ventilation
described in AAP A. Ans. 3. As such, the Examiner provides an adequate
reason with a rational underpinning for the modification. That the
Examiner's proposed modification of AAPA is not identical to the
modification suggested by Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rationale.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
AAP A and Wang. Claims 4--6 fall with claim 1.
Rejection 2
Claim 7 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites "an open cell core
panel having a top surface ... being secured to the bottom surface of the
first rigid sheet" and "the plurality of perforations through the first rigid
sheet and open cells of the open cell core panel at least partially forming the
plurality of flow paths." Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds
5
Appeal2017-010026
Application 14/ 494, 131
that Murray discloses an acoustic board for aircrafts including an open cell
core panel (intermediate honeycomb layer 2) having a top surface secured to
the bottom surface of a first rigid sheet (upper layer or sheet 4), and a
plurality of perforations (holes 6) through the first rigid sheet and open cells
of the open cell core panel at least partially forming the plurality of flow
paths. Final Act. 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify the aircraft subfloor assembly of AAP A to include the
features of claim 7, as taught by Murray, "to provide a further layer of
insulation to prevent engine noises from being disturbing." Id.
Appellant contends that an ordinary skilled artisan looking to prevent
bubbling and/or buckling of an air impermeable floor mat in an aircraft
cabin due to air pockets or air-filled voids beneath the floor mat being at a
higher pressure than the aircraft cabin air above the floor mat, would not
have considered the acoustic board of Murray that is constructed to reduce
the sound of aircraft engines. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellant points out that, in
addition to intermediate honeycomb layer 2, the acoustic board includes
fabric layer 7, which is not air impermeable, and lower layer 5, which
functions as an acoustically sound-reflecting surface and would prevent air
from flowing through the acoustic board. Id. at 7 ( citing Murray ,r 28).
The Examiner responds that the proposed combination modifies
AAP A "to include just the open cell core panel, regardless of the additional
layers." Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
Murray discloses that structure 1, which includes fabric layer 7,
supporting sheet 4, and lower layer 5, in addition to intermediate honeycomb
layer 2, "functions according to Helmholtz's resonant cavity principle."
Murray ,r 28. Murray also discloses, "[b ]y appropriately selecting the
6
Appeal2017-010026
Application 14/ 494, 131
characteristics of the layer of fabric 7 and supporting sheet 4, it is possible to
obtain a desired nominal sound velocity resistance value and a variation
value of said resistance with the velocity itself." Id. ,r 32. Murray further
discloses,
[w]ith the latter combination of said upper layer with the
intermediate honeycomb layer 2 and the lower layer 5, of the
conventional type, there is the possibility of obtaining an
acoustic board structure 1 having optimum characteristics for
all operating conditions of the engine and consequently an
overall improved sound attenuation, with respect to the acoustic
board structures belonging to the known art.
Id. ,r 34 (emphasis added). Murray discloses that the combination of the
upper layer structure (fabric layer 7 and supporting sheet 4) with
intermediate honeycomb layer 2 and lower layer 5 provides "an overall
improved sound attenuation." Murray does not disclose that intermediate
honeycomb layer 2, by itself, prevents engine noises. We are persuaded that
the Examiner's proposed modification of AAPA does not take into full
account Murray's teachings. Consequently, the Examiner has not provided
an adequate reason with a rational underpinning to modify AAPA and Wang
in view of Murray as proposed.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over
AAPA, Wang, and Murray.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 4--6, and reverse the rejection
of claim 7.
7
Appeal2017-010026
Application 14/ 494, 131
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8