Eric D. Bol

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

14729420 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2020)

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.
14/729,420 06/03/2015 Eric D. Bol 14-2311-US-NP (10623-52) 6211
104057 7590 01/28/2020
Evans & Dixon, LLC
211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500
Metropolitan Square
St.Louis, MO 63102
EXAMINER
SANDERSON, JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
ip@evans-dixon.com
jrolnicki@evans-dixon.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC D. BOL
____________

Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 7, 8, 10–12, 15–18, and 21–28 in
this application. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 1. The Board has jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. (filed Mar. 23, 2018) 2.
Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal, and it recites,
with our emphases added:
1. A nacelle inlet of an aircraft engine comprising:
a lipskin on a forward end of the nacelle inlet;
an outer barrel on an exterior of the nacelle inlet, the outer
barrel extending rearwardly from the lipskin;
an inner barrel on an interior of the nacelle inlet, the inner
barrel extending rearwardly from the lipskin; and,
an aft bulkhead on the nacelle inlet, the aft bulkhead having
an outer edge connected to the outer barrel and the aft bulkhead
having an inner edge connected to the inner barrel, the aft
bulkhead having a curved configuration as the aft bulkhead
extends from the outer edge of the aft bulkhead to the inner edge
of the aft bulkhead, the outer edge of the aft bulkhead being
positioned rearwardly of the inner edge of the aft bulkhead.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
All pending claims 1–3, 7, 8, 10–12, 15–18, and 21–28 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Porte (US 2012/0090694 A1,
pub. Apr. 19, 2012) and Lumbab (US 2015/0314882 A1, pub. Nov. 5, 2015).
All pending claims also are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Porte and Binks (US 2010/0260602 A1, pub. Oct. 14,
2010).

2 A rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness was
overcome by an After-Final Amendment entered by the Examiner. See Final
Act. (dated Nov. 1, 2017) 2; Amendment (filed Dec. 19, 2017) 4–5, 9;
Advisory Act. (dated Dec. 28, 2017) (entering the Amendment, and stating it
“has overcome the following rejection(s): 112(b) of claim 11”).
Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

3
OPINION
A. Obviousness over Porte and Lumbab
Appellant argues for the patentability of all pending claims as a group
over Porte and Lumbab, without arguing for any claim separately from the
other claims. See Appeal Br. 3–9. We select claim 1 to decide the appeal of
this rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
The Examiner finds Porte discloses each and every limitation of
claim 1, except that Porte’s aft bulkhead does not have a curved
configuration as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. Porte’s Figure 4 is
reproduced here:

As described in Porte, Figure 4 is a cutaway view of an aircraft nacelle
comprising air intake 110 and power plant 112, with rear frame 126 of air
intake 110 connecting inside wall 116 and outside wall 118. Porte ¶¶ 22, 26,
28–29. The Examiner cites Porte’s rear frame 126 as corresponding to an aft
bulkhead having an outer edge (i.e., point “B”) positioned rearwardly of an
inner edge (i.e., point “A”), as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. As
can be seen in Figure 4, Porte’s aft bulkhead 126 does not have the curved
configuration required by claim 1.
Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

4
The Examiner finds Lumbab discloses an aft bulkhead having a
curved configuration. Final Act. 3. Lumbab’s Figure 3 is reproduced here:

As described in Lumbab, Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view of engine
nacelle 10, including an enlarged view of aft bulkhead 70 which extends
between inner barrel 30 and outer barrel 28. Lumbab ¶¶ 10, 25. As can be
seen in Figure 3, Lumbab’s aft bulkhead 70 exhibits a curved configuration
as it extends from its inner end 72 to its outer end 74. Id. ¶¶ 25–26.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify
Porte’s aft bulkhead 126, which already has an outer edge positioned
rearwardly of an inner edge, to have a curved configuration as it extends
from the inner edge to the outer edge as disclosed by Lumbab, thereby
resulting in the invention of claim 1. Final Act. 3. This would have been
done, according to the Examiner, to achieve “the predictable advantage of
Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

5
distributing impact loads and eliminating the need for crush zone
components.” Id. (citing Lumbab ¶¶ 14, 21).
Appellant argues the rejection is deficient because neither Porte nor
Lumbab discloses, as recited in claim 1, an “aft bulkhead having a curved
configuration as the aft bulkhead extends from the outer edge of the aft
bulkhead to the inner edge of the aft bulkhead, the outer edge of the aft
bulkhead being positioned rearwardly of the inner edge of the aft bulkhead.”
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.); id. at 3–6. Instead, Appellant argues, Porte’s
aft bulkhead 126 “extends as a straight line between point A and point B,” so
it is not curved as claimed. Id. at 5–6. Lumbab’s aft bulkhead 70,
meanwhile, “extend[s] radially between the inner barrel 30 and the outer
barrel 28,” so it does not have an outer edge positioned rearwardly of an
inner edge as claimed. Id. at 6. Thus, Appellant’s view is that the claimed
subject matter “is only present in [Appellant’s] [S]pecification,” such that
the Examiner has relied improperly on hindsight to glean the claimed subject
matter from the prior art. Id. at 3–4, 7–9. Appellant additionally objects to
the Examiner’s reliance on Lumbab’s paragraph 21 in support of
obviousness, because that disclosure “refers to ‘alternative implementations’
of the positioning of the forward bulkhead [50] and aft bulkhead [70], not
alternative embodiments of the aft bulkhead [70].” Id. at 6–8.
The Examiner answers that, while “[A]ppellant is correct in asserting
that neither [Porte nor Lumbab] discloses all of these limitations
individually,” “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.”
Ans. 3 (emphasis by Examiner) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA
1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The
Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

6
Examiner finds the combination of Porte and Lumbab leads to the invention
of claim 1, because Porte’s aft bulkhead 126 has “an outer edge (at B)
rearward of an inner edge (at A) with an angled arrangement” even if
bulkhead 126 is not curved, and Lumbab’s aft bulkhead 70 is “curved . . .
without the angling.” Id. at 4. The Examiner maintains that the “alternative
embodiments” described in Lumbab’s paragraph 21 “refer[] not just to the
axial spacing, but also the radial extension,” and further teach more
generally “that adjusting the radial or axial positioning of the bulkhead is a
reasonable modification unless the bulkhead is rendered inoperative,” with
no evidence to establish such inoperability being presented here. Id. at 4–5.
Upon review of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. A
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Porte
discloses an aft bulkhead 126 having an outer edge at point “B” positioned
rearwardly of an inner edge at point “A”, as recited in claim 1. See Porte,
Fig. 4, ¶¶ 26, 29, 39–40 (“the point B is offset toward the rear of the nacelle
relative to the point A”). A preponderance of the evidence also supports the
Examiner’s finding that Lumbab discloses an aft bulkhead 70 having a
curved configuration, as the bulkhead extends between its inner and outer
edges, as recited in claim 1. See Lumbab, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 25–26 (“Aft
bulkhead 70 includes an inner end 72, an outer end 74, and a curvilinear
body portion 76 extending therebetween.”). Appellant’s argument that Porte
and Lumbab each, individually, fail to disclose an aft bulkhead that has an
outer edge positioned rearwardly of an inner edge, and a curved
configuration, does not identify any error in the foregoing findings.
The Examiner, additionally, provides a rational underpinning to
support the obviousness of modifying Porte’s aft bulkhead 126, which
Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

7
already has an outer edge positioned rearwardly of an inner edge, to have a
curved configuration in light of Lumbab. In this regard, the Examiner cites
Lumbab’s paragraph 14. See Final Act. 3. Lumbab therein discloses an aft
bulkhead that “include[s] a curvilinear body portion,” such as curvilinear
portion 76 of aft bulkhead 70, is thereby:
able to receive an impact load, from a birdstrike, for example,
and transfer that load circumferentially about the circumference
of the nacelle. Furthermore, the curvilinear body portion of the
aft bulkhead is configured to react to radial loads caused by a fan
blade out event. As such, the exemplary engine nacelle
eliminates the need for an additional crush zone component to
react to the radial load. . . . Accordingly, the . . . aft bulkhead[]
facilitate[s] reducing the part count of the engine nacelle and
provide[s] for a lighter, less expensive, and more easily
serviceable engine nacelle.
Lumbab ¶ 14; see also id. ¶¶ 28–29 (curved configuration of aft bulkhead 70
advantageously distributes axial loads generated by foreign objects
penetrating forward bulkhead 50 to reach aft bulkhead 70, and distributes
radial loads generated by a fan blade out event within the engine, thereby
eliminating the need for a crush zone component). These disclosures, which
Appellant does not address in its arguments on appeal, provide a rational
basis for the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
We tend to agree with Appellant’s position that Lumbab’s additional
disclosure in paragraph 21 does not, by itself, suggest modifying Porte’s aft
bulkhead 126 to have a curved configuration. Nonetheless, neither does it
contradict the Examiner’s determination of obviousness, based on Lumbab’s
paragraph 14.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of all pending
claims as having been obvious over Porte and Lumbab.
Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

8
B. Obviousness over Porte and Binks
The Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims as having been
obvious over Porte and Binks relies on Porte as discussed above in
connection with the rejection over Porte and Lumbab. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner then finds “Binks teaches curved bulkheads as alternatives for
‘flat’ bulkheads,” because Figures 2–4 of Binks illustrate a “bulkhead within
the nacelle at the front may be either flat or curved,” so flat and curved
bulkheads are “functional equivalents.” Id. at 5; Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Porte’s aft
bulkhead 126, which is flat, to have a curved configuration in light of Binks,
“as these are art-recognized alternative shapes for providing nacelle inlet
stiffeners, and further for the advantages understood by one of ordinary skill
that are noted above.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant objects that the rejection based upon Porte and Binks “relies
on impermissible hindsight.” Appeal Br. 9. For the following reasons, we
agree.
The evidence of record does not establish that a flat bulkhead is
functionally equivalent to a curved bulkhead. We appreciate that Figure 2 of
Binks shows a flat forward bulkhead 260, and Figures 3 and 4 of Binks each
show a curved forward bulkhead (unnumbered). Nonetheless, the Examiner
does not cite, and we cannot find, any disclosure in Binks tending to show
that these alternative bulkhead designs are functionally equivalent.
Moreover, other evidence of record suggests that flat bulkheads function
differently from curved bulkheads. That is, Lumbab discloses how a curved
bulkhead is configured to receive an axial impact load by axially
compressing. Lumbab ¶ 28. Further, a curved bulkhead is configured to
Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

9
receive a radial impact load by compressing in the radial direction to absorb
a portion of the load. Id. ¶ 29. A flat bulkhead would not appear to react to
axial impact loads and radial impact loads in those manners. Thus, the
evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s finding that a flat
bulkhead is functionally equivalent to a curved bulkhead.
The Examiner’s rejection additionally cites “the advantages
understood by one of ordinary skill that are noted above” in support of
obviousness over Porte and Binks. Final Act. 5. Presumably, the Examiner
is referring to the advantages of curved bulkheads disclosed by Lumbab,
cited in connection with the first rejection. See id. at 3. However, Lumbab
is not expressly cited in connection with the second rejection, and also the
Examiner does not explain how Lumbab’s disclosure inter-relates with the
respective disclosures of Porte and Binks, so as to support the second
rejection which cites only Porte and Binks. Id. at 4–5.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of all
pending claims as having been obvious over Porte and Binks.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7, 8,
10–12, 15–18,
21–28
103 Porte, Lumbab 1–3, 7, 8,
10–12, 15–18,
21–28

1–3, 7, 8,
10–12, 15–18,
21–28
103 Porte, Binks 1–3, 7, 8,
10–12, 15–18,
21–28
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 7, 8,
10–12, 15–18,
21–28

Appeal 2018-008130
Application 14/729,420

10
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED