The Boeing CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 24, 20212020002104 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation