Ex Parte Senesac et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2019

13861678 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/861,678 04/12/2013
63759 7590 02/04/2019
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher J. Senesac
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.
13-0059-US-NP 1789
EXAMINER
CHOW,DOONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. SENESAC,
RALPH P. HEINEFIELD, and MICHAEL HONEA
Appeal2018-002493
Application 13/861,678 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11 and 13-20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Technology
The application relates to "identifying a nonconformance in the
assembling of vehicles in a manufacturing environment." Spec. ,r 2. The
claims are directed to graphically displaying manufacturing
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "The Boeing
Company." App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002493
Application 13/861,678
nonconformances for an aircraft, by nonconformance type, responsive to a
user's selection of the nonconformance type. The nonconformances are for
a given volume of the aircraft. See id. Figs. 23-25, 27, 32, and ,r,r 229-31,
250.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 16, and 18 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below for reference:
1. A method for processing nonconformances, the method
compnsmg:
identifying, via a processor unit, a volume in a model of
an aircraft;
importing, via the processor unit, the nonconformances
associated with parts within the volume of the model of the
aircraft by:
displaying, on a display device, an input data
window such that the input data window displays the
nonconformances in rows such that each row has a
corresponding non-conformance and each row includes a
nonconformance type; and
responsive to a user selection of the
nonconformance type, parsing the nonconformances
associated with the parts within the identified volume in
the model of the aircraft based on the selected
nonconformance type;
displaying graphical indicators indicating the
nonconformances within the volume in a graphical user interface
on the display device;
determining, using the graphical indicators, density
information for the nonconformances; [ and]
determining, using the density information, an area of
interest.
2
Appeal2018-002493
Application 13/861,678
References and Re} ections2
Claims 1, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 2-7.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Lindgren (US 2010/0161095 Al;
published June 24, 2010) and Froom (US 2013/261876 Al; published Oct.
3, 2013). Final Act. 7-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Rejection of claims 1, 16, and 18 Under§ 112, First Paragraph
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "responsive to a user selection of the
nonconformance type, parsing the nonconformances associated with the
parts within the identified volume in the model of the aircraft based on the
selected nonconformance type." Claims 16 and 18 recite corresponding
subject matter.
The Examiner finds that "there is no support found in the instant
specification" for this subject matter. Final Act. 3.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief filed July 20,
2017 ("App. Br."), as well as the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed April 20, 2017 ("Final Act."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed November 3, 2017 ("Ans."), and Appellants'
Reply Brief filed January 3, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2018-002493
Application 13/861,678
We are persuaded of error. Specifically, we agree with Appellants
that support may be found at least at paragraphs 125, 126, 161,230,231, and
Figure 6. App. Br. 7-11; see, e.g., Spec. ,r 230 ("Responsive to receiving the
user input from selecting import data button 2306 and further responsive to
the parsing of the nonconformance data identified in source window 2302,
input data window 2308 displays information about the nonconformances in
the nonconformance data.").
We therefore reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of claims 1, 16, and 18.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-11 and 13-20
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us the Examiner errs in
finding that the combination of Lindgren and Froom renders the claims
obvious. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusion that claims 1-11
and 13-20 are obvious over the cited combination of references and the
Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. Final Act. 7-13; Ans. 12-
23. We provide the following for emphasis.
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part:
importing, via the processor unit, the nonconformances
associated with parts within the volume of the model of the
aircraft by:
displaying, on a display device, an input data
window such that the input data window displays the
nonconformances in rows such that each row has a
corresponding non-conformance and each row includes a
nonconformance type; and
responsive to a user selection of the
nonconformance type, parsing the nonconformances associated
4
Appeal2018-002493
Application 13/861,678
with the parts within the identified volume in the model of the
aircraft based on the selected nonconformance type.
App. Br. 23.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has committed reversible error for
failing to properly interpret "responsive to a user selection of the
nonconformance type, parsing the nonconformances associated with the
parts within the identified volume in the model of the aircraft based on the
selected nonconformance type" to mean "displaying nonconformance data in
rows and columns in response to user interaction with a GUI object." App.
Br. 12-13; see also id. at 7-11; Reply Br. 7-9. Appellants, however, do not
explicitly state how this limitation should be interpreted. See id. We
therefore are not persuaded that the Examiner's interpretation of this claim
language is unreasonably broad or inconsistent with Appellants'
Specification. Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner has
improperly interpreted the claim, we also are not persuaded that the
improper interpretation led the Examiner to improperly give "the express use
of claims terms adequate weight," as Appellants argue. Final Act. 14.
Appellants also argue error because the claims are not obvious in view
of the combination of Lindgren and Froom. Final Act. 14--18. Appellants
argue that Lindgren's step 62 of Figure 7, described at paragraph 35, "does
not generate the 3-D boundaries of the repair area by displaying a row with
the repair area that shows a repair type." Id. at 15. Appellants contend that
"even if the damage location showed a 'row' there is no information
displayed in the damage location 150 that shows a damage type." Id.
Appellants further contend that "Lindgren cannot be modified to Figure 13B
to import the location of the area needing repair because such a modification
would be incompatible with the system of Lindgren." Id.
5
Appeal2018-002493
Application 13/861,678
Regarding Froom, Appellants argue that "there is no discussion about
a user interacting with the tabular summary to import the defects," that
Froom "does not disclose that the location of the defects are imported by
parsing the defects from within an identified volume in the aircraft," and that
"Froom simply discloses a tabular summary of defects and that one skilled
in the art wou[l]d not arrive at the claimed input data window based on this
disclosure." App. Br. 17. Appellants contend that "[e]ven if Froom
disclosed displaying defects in a row, Froom does not disclose that each
includes a defect type. Nor does Froom disclose that information presented
in the rows is selectable." Id. Based on these asserted errors, Appellants
contend the references do not teach or suggest the portion of claim 1 quoted
above. Id. at 14--20; Reply Br. 9-11.
We are not persuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner.
Ans. 13-17. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that the additional
teachings of the references specifically argued by Appellants do not negate
that the limitations at issue, broadly but reasonably construed, read on other
teachings in the references. Id. at 14 (Appellants' argument "does not
preclude the fact that Lindgren teaches the claimed features or that the
combination of the references would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art based on the broadest interpretation of the claim language.").
Appellants' arguments do not specifically address, for example, Lindgren's
teachings at paragraphs 6, 33-37, as the Examiner points out. Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings
upon which the rejection is based. Final Act. 7-13. We also agree with the
Examiner that Appellants' arguments amount to an unpersuasive attack on
the references individually, when the rejection is based on the combined
6
Appeal2018-002493
Application 13/861,678
teachings of the references. Ans. 15 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 18 and those that
depend therefrom.
Appellants additionally argue dependent claims 2, 17, and 19 on the
basis that "the Office Action fails to assess the differences between claim 2
and Lindgren and Froom considered together as a whole, and hence failed to
state a prima facie obviousness rejection against claim 2 in particular." App.
Br. 21-22. Claim 2 recites "displaying the graphical indicators to indicate a
presence of a cluster of the nonconformances within the volume, wherein the
cluster identifies nonconformances having parameters that relate the
non conformance to one another." The Examiner construes claim 2 to
include "graphically displaying nonconformances that are positioned in a
same area or cluster of a plane's fuselage." Ans. 20. The Examiner finds
Lindgren's disclosure of graphically displaying an identified boundary of a
non-confirming area relates nonconformances within that area by the
parameter of proximity. Ans. 20-21.
Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 12-14) do not
persuade us of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 20-21 ).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and
13-20.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2018-002493
Application 13/861,678
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8