The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2021

2020002104 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2021)

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.
14/837,394 08/27/2015 Daniel B. Slaton 14-2002-US-NP 1093
101302 7590 03/24/2021
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman (Boeing)
150 S. Wacker Drive
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
MATZEK, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2021 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):
docketing@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL B. SLATON and MATTHEW ALLEN ANGLIN
Appeal 2020-002104
Application 14/837,394
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–2, 4–7, 9–16, and 21–27. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as THE BOEING
COMPANY. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-002104
Application 14/837,394
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a methods, systems and apparatus for lining
an aircraft cargo compartment. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a liner to define an interior wall of a cargo compartment of
an aircraft, the liner having:
a fire-resistant composite layer to provide flame-
penetration resistance to the compartment; and
a first metallic layer coupled to the composite layer to
increase a structural rigidity of the composite layer and to
increase the flame-penetration resistance provided when the
composite layer is exposed to fire, the first metallic layer to
define an outermost layer of the liner, the first metallic layer
having a grid-like structure such that the composite layer is
exposed via openings formed by the grid-like structure.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–16, and 21–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over by Sudhakar (US 2012/0090452 A1. Apr. 19,
2012). (Final Act. 2.)
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has
long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged
error in the examiner’s rejections . . . ” citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claims 1, 4, 6, 7,
9, 11, 13–16, and 21–26 as a group and individually addresses claims 2, 5,
Appeal 2020-002104
Application 14/837,394
3
10, 12, and 27 under separate headings in the Appeal Brief. (Appeal Br. 6–
16.) We will address the claims as argued by Appellant in turn below.
The Examiner finds Sudhakar teaches a ballistic panel, which may
serve as a wall liner for airplanes, comprising multiple layers of a fiberglass
and resin composite 104,108, and a metal mesh layer 112. (Final Act. 3;
Sudhakar ¶¶ 36-43, Fig. 1B.) The Examiner finds the metal mesh layer 112
equates to the claimed first metallic layer and layers 104 and 108 are the
composite layers. (Final Act. 3; Sudhakar ¶ 39.) The Examiner finds
Sudhakar teaches the metal mesh layer can be made of steel that has a
melting point exceeding 2500°F. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner also finds
Sudhakar teaches metallic washers and fasteners can be used to attach
multiple panels. (Final Act. 3.)
Appellant argues that Sudhakar fails to teach a first metallic layer
coupled to a composite layer, wherein the first metallic layer is grid-like and
defines an outermost layer of a liner that exposes the composite layer via
openings in the metallic layer. (Appeal Br. 7–10.) Appellant argues
Sudhakar’s mesh layer 112 is positioned between alternating fiberglass mat
layers 104 and 108. (Appeal Br. 10; Sudhakar ¶ 33.) Appellant argues
Sudhakar’s fiberglass mat layer 104 provides strength and puncture
resistance to the panel not to the mesh layer 112. (Appeal Br. 10; Sudhakar ¶
36.) Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner has relied upon
impermissible hindsight to improperly modify the ballistic panel of
Sudhakar by removing a fiberglass mat layer 104 and a fiberglass roving
layer 108 so that the mesh layer 112 is the outermost layer of the ballistic
panel. (Appeal Br. 11.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant provides arguments specifically addressing the embodiment of
Appeal 2020-002104
Application 14/837,394
4
Sudhakar Figure 1B described in paragraph 33. However, the teachings of
Sudhakar are not limited to the exemplified embodiment. Sudhakar teaches
ballistic panel may have a variety of layers in a variety of configurations.
(Sudhakar ¶¶ 8–14, 33.) Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that a ballistic panel, such as described by
Sudhakar, could have an arrangement wherein the shielding mesh layer is
external to the fiberglass layer with or without additional layers.
Appellant argues Sudhakar mesh layer does not increase the structural
rigidity of the fiberglass layers. (Appeal Br. 11.) The Specification discloses
metallic foil layers are sufficient to add structural rigidity. (Spec. ¶¶ 21, 25.)
Appellant has not directed us to evidence that the structure of the claimed
metallic layer is different from Sudhakar’s shielding layer. Sudhakar, like
the present invention, teaches the metal mesh layer can be made of steel that
has a melting point exceeding 2500°F. (Spec. ¶ 36; Sudhakar ¶ 41.)
Based on the arguments and evidence Appellant presents in the
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence of record supports the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
Claim 2
Appellant argues that nothing in Sudhakar teaches or suggests
providing metal mesh layer 112 for fire resistance characteristics and having
a melting point equal to or greater than about 2000°F because the mesh layer
is configured to prevent eavesdropping or surveillance. (Appeal Br. 14.)
Appellant’s argument lacks convincing merit. As stated above,
Sudhakar, like the present invention, teaches the metal mesh layer can be
made of steel that has a melting point exceeding 2500°F. (Spec. ¶ 36;
Sudhakar ¶ 41.)
Appeal 2020-002104
Application 14/837,394
5
Claim 5
Appellant argues that Sudhakar fails to teach or suggest the first
metallic layer comprising a metallic plate or metallic washer adjacent at least
one of the fasteners. (Appeal Br. 15.)
Appellant’s argument lacks convincing merit. Sudhakar teaches the
suitability of utilizing various mechanisms for attaching the panels.
Specifically, Sudhakar teaches the ballistic panels may be joined together
using fasteners 308 and braces 304A, 304B (i.e., washers). (Sudhakar ¶¶ 69–
72.) Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
the suitability of utilizing a metallic plate or washer adjacent to the
fashioning mechanism.
Claim 10
Appellant argues that Sudhakar fails to teach a second metallic layer
that forms a reinforcing grid that increases the structural rigidity of the
composite layer to increase the flame penetration resistance provide by the
composite layer. (Appeal Br. 15–16.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant essentially repeats the argument that Sudhakar’s fiberglass mat
layer 104 provides strength and puncture resistance to the panel not to the
mesh layer 112. (See Appeal Br. 10.) As set forth above, Sudhakar teaches
the suitability of utilizing additional metal mesh or solid metal layers (form
from materials having a melting point exceeding 2500°F required by the
claimed invention) that may be separated by resin composite layers. See
(Sudhakar ¶¶ 8–14, 33.) Furthermore, Sudhakar in the figures depict
utilizing multiple metallic layers.
Claim 27
Appeal 2020-002104
Application 14/837,394
6
Appellant argues that Sudhakar fails to teach or suggest offsetting a
second metal relative to fiberglass layers 104,108. (Appeal Br. 16.)
Appellant argues nothing in Sudhakar mentions that the solid layer 116 can
be offset relative to the mesh layer 112. (Reply Br. 8–9.)
Sudhakar teaches multiple metal layers that may be utilized in various
configurations depending upon the type of utility. (Sudhakar ¶ ¶ 41–45.) The
utilization of multiple mesh layers having different opening sizes would
meet the requirements of the claimed invention.
Claim 12
Addressing independent claim 12, Appellant repeats the argument
presented for independent claim 1 that Sudhakar fails to teach a first metallic
layer coupled to a composite layer, wherein the first metallic layer is grid-
like and defines an outermost layer of a liner that exposes the composite
layer via openings in the metallic layer. (Appeal Br. 16–17.)
Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive as to
independent claim 1, it follows that these arguments are unpersuasive as to
claim 12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–2, 4–7, 9–16, and 21–27 is
AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2020-002104
Application 14/837,394
7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7,
9–16, 21–
27
103 Sudhakar 1, 2, 4–7, 9–
16, 21–27

RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED