The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 5, 2021

2020004869 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 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.
15/331,864 10/23/2016 Gregory James Sweers 16-1018-US-NP 8554
63759 7590 11/05/2021
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
GLOVER, CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2021 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY JAMES SWEERS

Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864
Technology Center 2400

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1–20 and 25–27, which constitute all
of the claims pending in this application. 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 (2019). Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims relate to inspection for
inconsistencies and benchmarking of an aircraft after a lightning strike.
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 14, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
14. A method comprising:
moving a device around outside surfaces of an aircraft,
the device comprising:
a housing;
a sensor in the housing and configured to detect a
lightning-caused inconsistency on the aircraft;
a non-transitory data storage device in the housing
and configured to capture images of the lightning-caused
inconsistency from the sensor; and
a data processor in the housing and configured to
characterize characteristics of the lightning-caused
inconsistency using the images and to compare the
characteristics to a preexisting data set;
scanning the outside surfaces of the aircraft and detecting
the lightning-caused inconsistency at a location on the aircraft
with the sensor;
capturing images of the lightning-caused inconsistency
with the data storage device;
characterizing, by the data processor, the characteristics
of the lightning-caused inconsistency using the images;
comparing, with the data processor using inconsistency
assessment dispatch logic, the characteristics to a pre-existing
data set to assess the lightning-caused inconsistency according
to predetermined design limits for allowable inconsistencies for
the location on the aircraft, and wherein assessing the
inconsistency is performed while continuing to scan other areas
of the aircraft with the sensor;
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

3
determining, with the data processor, whether the aircraft
is airworthy based on the assessment, wherein a determination
is formed; and
transmitting the determination to a remote display device
only after all inspection of the aircraft is completed.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Knight US 2011/0054730 A1 Mar. 3, 2011
Klaas US 2014/0015963 A1 Jan. 16, 2014
Foulk et al. (“Foulk”) US 2014/0132729 A1 May 15, 2014
COLIN et al. (“Colin”) US 2016/0264262 A1 Sept. 15, 2016
REJECTIONS
Claims 14, 15, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Colin and Knight. Final Act. 4–7.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Colin, Knight, and Klaas. Final Act. 7.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Colin. Final Act. 8–9.
Claims 1–6 and 8–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Klaas and Colin. Final Act. 9–13.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Klaas, Colin, and Foulk. Final Act. 13.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Klaas, Colin, and Knight. Final Act. 14.
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

4
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Colin and Knight. Final Act. 14.
ANALYSIS
Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20
Given our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the
obviousness rejection of claims 14, 15, 19, and 20, argued as a group, based
on representative claim 14. See Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant argues that the combination of Colin and Knight does not
teach or suggest that a data processor in a device determines whether an
aircraft is airworthy based on an assessment “wherein assessing the
inconsistency is performed while continuing to scan other areas of the
aircraft with the sensor,” or that the determination is transmitted to a remote
display device only after the inspection is completed, as claim 14 requires.
Appeal Br. 8–9.
Appellant contends that Colin does not teach “assessing the
inconsistency is performed while continuing to scan other areas of the
aircraft with the sensor” because, in Colin, results are transmitted to a
control center each time an anomaly is detected, interrupting the inspection.
Id. at 9. Appellant further argues that paragraphs 68 and 69 of Colin, relied
on by the Examiner, “make no mention of an assessment being performed.”
Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner found that Colin teaches that assessing an
inconsistency in one zone of the aircraft may require ongoing inspection of a
second comparative zone to acquire comparative data for the first zone,
which teaches or suggests that assessing the inconsistency is performed
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

5
while continuing to scan other areas of the aircraft with the sensor, as
required by claim 14. Ans. 16 (citing Colin ¶¶ 68, 69).
Appellant argues in a conclusory manner that “[t]he system disclosed
in Colin does not have the ability to assess inconsistencies while continuing
to inspect other areas of the aircraft without interruption.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant also argues that “there is no mention in these sections of an
assessment being performed concurrently with scanning of other areas of the
aircraft.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because
they are conclusory, merely reciting the claim limitation, the teachings of
Colin, and stating that the two are not the same. See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply
Br. 3. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief
than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, the test for obviousness is not
whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious
to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of
those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant further argues that “paragraphs [0068] and [0069] quoted
make no mention of an assessment being performed.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant
argues that paragraph 142 of Colin “merely describes determining the
characteristics of a defect.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner found that Colin teaches performing quantitative
analysis (i.e., assessment) of defects. Final Act. 6 (citing Colin ¶ 142).
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

6
Appellant has not persuasively explained why Colin’s teaching of
performing quantitative analysis on a defect does not teach or suggest
“assessing” an inconsistency, as required by claim 14. In the paragraph of
Colin cited by the Examiner, performing a quantitative analysis of a defect
includes the “extent (surface area, length, width, etc.) of the anomaly, for
example of an area affected by an impact, depth of a deformation, intensity
of a cause that has led to the observed anomaly, such as a rise in
temperature, intensity of a leak in the case of the presence of a suspect fluid,
etc.” Colin ¶ 142. We note that Appellant’s Specification describes that an
inconsistency assessment includes “assessing the size, location, depth, and
structural design at the inconsistency location.” Spec. ¶ 31. Appellant has
not persuasively explained how the quantitative analysis taught in Colin’s
paragraph 142 differs from the description of an “inconsistency assessment”
provided in Appellant’s Specification such that paragraph 142 of Colin does
not teach or suggest “assessing the inconsistency” as described in the
Specification and as recited in claim 14.
Appellant next argues that Knight fails to teach “transmitting a
determination of airworthiness (or similar operational worthiness) based on
an automated assessment of detected inconsistencies.” Appeal Br. 9–10.
The Examiner relied on Colin as teaching “transmitting the
determination to a remote display device,” as recited in claim 14. Id. (citing
Colin ¶ 141). The Examiner, however, relied on Knight in combination with
Colin as teaching the final portion of the disputed transmitting limitation—
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

7
“only after all inspection of the aircraft is completed.” Final Act. 6 (citing
Knight Fig. 3, ¶¶ 29, 58).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that it is immaterial that Knight’s inspection system requires a
manual operator, as the Examiner relied on Knight only for teaching a single
transmission of data after the aircraft inspection is complete. See Ans. 18.
Appellant has not persuasively addressed the combined teachings of Colin
and Knight, or persuasively explained how transmitting manually-created
data differs from transmitting data produced by an automated process. See In
re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d at 425) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the
art.”).
Next, Appellant argues that claim 14 recites “a data processor[] in the
housing . . . determining . . . whether the aircraft is airworthy,” and thus the
claims require the assessment to be performed by the processor in the
device. Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner found that Figure 1 of Colin teaches inspection device
processor 20 located within the chassis of inspection device 11. Ans. 19; see
also Final Act. 5 (citing Colin ¶¶ 110, 138, 140, 142). The Examiner further
found that processor 20 “perform[s] a quantitative analysis of the defect,”
which the Examiner found teaches an assessment of the defect. Ans. 19
(citing Colin ¶¶ 142, 145). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s findings with regard to the processor in Colin.
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

8
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combined teachings of Colin and Knight teach or
suggest the disputed limitations of claim 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 14, 15, 19, and 20.
Claim 18
With regard to dependent claim 18, in addition to the arguments
made above for claim 14, Appellant argues that paragraphs 117 and
118 of Colin, relied on by the Examiner, fail to teach or suggest the
limitation “transmitting to the remote display device a
recommendation that the aircraft continue to be operated for a
predetermined amount of time before the aircraft should receive
maintenance for the lightning-caused inconsistency.” Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner found paragraph 118 of Colin teaches that, in
response to identifying an anomaly, a robot transmits an alert message
with an “orange” (caution) alarm. The Examiner also found that
paragraph 141 of Colin teaches transmitting a message regarding low
structural risk and a repair to be scheduled. Final Act. 6; Ans. 10–11.
The Examiner thus found that Colin teaches “providing a
recommendation (orange alert) that the aircraft be flied [sic] until the
scheduled repair,” which at least suggests the disputed “transmitting”
limitation, as recited in claim 18. Ans. 20.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellant did
not address the Examiner’s findings based on paragraphs 118 and 141
of Colin, or persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

9
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Colin and Knight teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation of claim 18.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of dependent claim 18.
Claims 16 and 17
Appellant argues that dependent claims 16 and 17 are patentable
because they depend from claim 14, discussed above. Appeal Br. 11.
For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 14, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 16 and 17.
Claim 25
Appellant argues that independent claim 25 is patentable for reasons
similar to those discussed above with regard to the disputed “assessing”
limitation of claim 14, discussed above. Appeal Br. 12–13.
For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 14, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 25.
Claims 1–6 and 8–13
Appellant argues that independent claim 1 is patentable for reasons
similar to those discussed above with regard to the disputed “assessing”
limitation of claim 14, discussed above. Appeal Br. 14.
For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 14, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as of dependent claims 2–6
and 8–13, not argued separately with particularity. See id.
Claim 7
Appellant argues that dependent claim 7 is patentable because it
depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

10
For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 14, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 7.
Claim 26
Appellant argues that dependent claim 26 is patentable because it
ultimately depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15.
For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 14, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 26.
Claim 27
Appellant argues that dependent claim 27 is patentable because it
depends from claim 25. Appeal Br. 15.
For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 14, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 27.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 and 25–27.

Appeal 2020-004869
Application 15/331,864

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14, 15, 18–20 103 Colin, Knight 14, 15, 18–20
16, 17 103 Colin, Knight,
Klaas
16, 17
25 103 Colin 25
1–6, 8–13 103 Klaas, Colin 1–6, 8–13
7 103 Klaas, Colin,
Foulk
7
26 103 Klaas, Colin,
Knight
26
27 103 Colin, Knight 27
Overall
Outcome
1–20, 25–27

TIME PERIOD FOR 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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED