Ex Parte BurdDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201713773908 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2017) 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. LBG212-07US 4076 EXAMINER GOLDEN, CHINESSA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1788 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/773,908 02/22/2013 19148 7590 09/14/2017 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP 101 South Tryon Street Suite 2200 Charlotte, NC 28280-0002 Peter John Leslie Burd 09/14/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER JOHN LESLIE BURD Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 Technology Center 1700 Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, JULIA HEANEY, and AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 12—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE and enter a new ground of rejection against claims 12— 19 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”), filed February 22, 2013, as amended, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated January 11, 2016, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed June 2, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated September 12, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 4, 2016. 2 Appellant is the Applicant, B/E Aerospace, Inc., which according to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal relates to an acoustically and thermally insulated galley shell. Spec. 17. Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 12. An improved aircraft monument, comprising: an aircraft galley monument housing at least one refrigeration unit; and a protective panel forming at least a part of the aircraft galley monument, the protective panel including: an impact-resistant outer skin; a carbon fiber composite panel; a thermal insulation panel selectively disposed in contact with a metallic cold bridge, the metallic cold bridge extending across the thermal insulation panel, the thermal insulation panel comprised of a vacuum insulation panel tiles; and an insulating layer of open cell acoustic foam within the panel. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: A. Claims 12—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belanger3 in view of Gomes,4 Mueller,5 Bhatnagar,6 and Struve.7 Final Act. 2. 3 Belanger et al., US 2011/0248458 Al, published October 13, 2011 (“Belanger”). 4 Gomes et al., US 2011/0101160 Al, published May 5, 2011 (“Gomes”). 5 Mueller et al., US 2009/0304979 Al, published December 10, 2009 (“Mueller”). 6 Bhatnagar et al., US 2007/0238379 Al, published October 11, 2007 (“Bhatnagar”). 7 Struve et al., US 2005/0211838 Al, published September 29, 2005 (“Struve”). 2 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 B. Claims 18—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belanger in view of Gomes, Mueller, Bhatnagar, Struve, and further in view of Panned.8 Id. at 7. OPINION Examiner’s § 103(a) Rejections A andB Appellant requests reversal of Rejections A and B. See generally Appeal Br. Because the basis for our reversal of the Examiner’s Rejections A and B—i.e., the lack of a galley monument in Bellanger—is relevant to all claims, we limit our discussion to independent claim 12. The Examiner rejects claim 12 (among others) as obvious over the combination of Belanger, Gomes, Mueller, Bhatnagar, and Struve. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Belanger teaches an aircraft monument having an aircraft galley monument with a protective panel. Id. The Examiner acknowledges that the remaining claim elements are missing from Belanger’s teachings, but additionally finds that: (1) Gomes teaches an aircraft galley monument with a refrigeration unit, useful for keeping contents such as medicine and food cold; (2) Mueller teaches a vacuum insulation panel in contact with a metallic cold bridge, useful for providing improved insulation properties; (3) Bhatnagar teaches a ballistic resistant protective panel comprising an impact-resistant outer skin, useful for providing “superior structural, impact, and ballistic performance;” and (4) Struve teaches an insulating layer comprising an open cell acoustic foam, allowing for easy use and installation. Id. at 3—5. Shawn D. Pannell, US 5,876,540, issued March 2, 1999 (“Pannell”). 3 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 Appellant argues that Belanger, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, does not teach an aircraft galley monument. Appeal Br. 5. Rather, according to Appellant, Belanger “is directed to a galley cart and method of securing a bumper or railing to the galley cart.” Id. Appellant stresses that Belanger, the primary reference, “lacks all the features of the claimed invention save ‘a protective panel.’” Id. And, “the only thing that the primary reference is cited to teach is a ‘monument,’ which is improper because Belanger does not teach a monument but rather a drink cart.” Id. Thus, Appellant argues that the primary reference fails to teach any limitation of the claim. Id. We agree with Appellant that Belanger fails to teach an aircraft galley monument but instead teaches a galley or beverage cart.9 While the Specification does not expressly define the term galley monument, the term monument is a term of art to describe modular fixed assemblies used to configure and define aircraft cabin compartments—e.g., galley and lavatory monuments. The Specification supports this understanding and identifies aircraft monuments 100 and 200 of Figures 1—3 and explains that “Figure 1 illustrates an exterior view of a modular integrated galley comprising a stand-alone beverage station 100 and a stand-alone food preparation station 200.” Spec. H13 and 16. And, as illustrated in Figures 2—3, the galley monuments 100 and 200 have storage compartments 20 to stow drink carts. See also id. 114 (“The structure 13 includes six beverage cart storage compartments 20 that house beverage carts used to facilitate service to the passengers.”). Thus, the drink cart of Belanger is not a galley monument as 9As discussed below in more detail, however, Gomes discloses an aircraft galley monument 14. Gomes 126. 4 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 understood by the Specification. Accordingly, on this record, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 12—17 (Rejection A) and claims 18—19 (Rejection B). New Grounds of Rejection Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.05(b), we enter the following new grounds of rejection: I. Claims 12—17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gomes in view of Belanger, Mueller, Bhatnagar and Struve. II. Claims 18—19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gomes in view of Belanger, Mueller, Bhatnagar, Struve, and further in view of Pannell. New Ground I: We determine that the combination of Gomes, Belanger, Mueller, Bhatnagar and Struve suggests all of the limitations that would render claims 12—17 obvious. We make the following findings of fact and conclusions regarding the combination of Gomes, Belanger, Mueller, Bhatnagar and Struve: 1. With regard to claim 1, Gomes teaches a galley monument. Gomes 126. In particular, Gomes, referencing Figure 1, discloses that “[t]he galley structures 10 and 12 may be positioned opposite to another fixed-position galley structure 14 or other suitable aircraft monument (e.g., table, passenger seat, lavatory and the like) as may be desired by the aircraft owner or operator.” Id. (emphasis added). 5 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 2. Gomes further teaches that the galley monument may contain conventional galley equipment including a refrigerator. Id. 3. Gomes fails to teach a protective panel as part of the galley monument that comprises an impact resistant outer skin, a carbon fiber composite panel, a thermal insulation panel selectively disposed in contact with a metallic cold bridge, the metallic cold bridge extending across the thermal insulation panel, the thermal insulation panel comprised of a vacuum insulation panel tiles; or an insulating layer of open cell acoustic foam within the panel. 4. However, Belanger teaches a galley cart for use on a passenger airplane that an exterior finishing layer or protective panel “to protect the body 14 and improve its resistance to contacts with exterior objects while giving an alternate aesthetic finish to the body 14.” Belanger || 92 and 115. 5. Mueller discloses an aircraft fairing with a thermal insulation component 9 enclosed between a first cover layer 1 and a second cover layer 2. Mueller || 1, 10, 25, 27 and Figure 4. The thermal insulation component 9 comprises vacuum insulation panels (or VIPs). Id. 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 27, and 42-43. The aircraft side fairing which adjoins the aircraft skin 5 may be in the form of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic. Id. Tflf 25, 27, and Figures 3 and 4. Thus, the component 9 (thermal insulation panel) is sandwiched between the cover layer 1 and the aircraft skin 5 in the form of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic (carbon fiber composite panel). Id. H 3, 5, 8, 12, 27, and Figure 4. The thermal insulation component 9 is disposed in contact with a metallic layer which is a cold bridge because it is a poorly insulated area. Id. H 1, 3, 5, 8, 12, 27, and Figures 3 and 4. 6 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 6. Bhatnagar discloses ballistic resistant composites for airplanes that possesses superior structural, impact, and ballistic performance at a light weight. Bhatnagar 12. The Bhatnagar composite comprises a central panel 10 positioned between a first panel 12 and a second panel 14. Id. 112,10, 11, 27, and Figure 1. The first and second panels, 12 and 14, comprise fibrous layers formed from high strength fibers coated with a polymeric composition. Id. 10, 11, 27, and 32. Thus, Bhatnagar teaches a protective panel comprising an impact-resistant outer skin. 7. And, Struve teaches a multi-layered aircraft insulation with at least one layer made from an open-celled foam that provides acoustic and thermal insulation. Struve 1,2, and 7. Open-cell foams are “compression fit into the fuselage” providing effective attachment and “superior close-out of gaps.” Id. 8 and 59. 8. The skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the protective panel taught by Belanger with the aircraft galley monument of Gomes because Belanger teaches an exterior finishing panel (or a protective panel) to improve resistance to contacts with exterior objects and to protect the body. Belanger 1115. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in a similar way, using that technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 417 (2007). 9. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the panel of Mueller in the aircraft galley monument of Gomes in order to provide an improvement in insulation properties (Mueller H 5 and 8), to use the ballistic (impact) resistant outer 7 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 skin of Bhatnagar in the protective panel of Belanger in order to provide superior structural, impact and ballistic performance at a lightweight for improved security and protection (Bhatnagar || 2 and 7); and to incorporate the open cell acoustic foam of Struve into the protective panel of Belanger in order to provide an insulation material which is easy to use, easy to install as well as cost effective in terms of fabrication, installation and life cycle (Struve 2, 6, 8, and 59). 10. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites “the thermal insulation panel is sandwiched between the impact-resistant outer skin and the carbon fiber composite panel.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x). Component 9, i.e., the thermal insulation panel of Mueller, is sandwiched between the cover layer 1 and the aircraft skin 5 in the form of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic (carbon fiber composite panel). Id. H 3, 5, 8, 12, 27, and Figure 4. 11. Claim 14 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites “spacers in place of said thermal insulation panel in areas where there are no cold bridges.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x). Mueller discloses that the thermal insulation component 9 includes hollow chambers 12—14, i.e., spacers. Mueller ^ 12, 24, and 25. These spacers are in places where component 9 would be and therefore in place of said thermal insulation panels and in areas where there are no cold bridges. Id. Tflf 3, 5, 8, 12, 27, and Figure 4. It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to include the spacers of Mueller in the aircraft galley of Gomes in order to improve insulation properties and provide for lightweight components of high strength. Id. Tflf 2, 5, and 8. 12. Claim 15 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites that the “thickness of the thermal insulation panel is approximately twice a thickness of the impact resistant outer skin.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x). 8 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 Mueller teaches that the thickness of the insulating layers can be decisively reduced. Mueller 12. Mueller does not disclose a thickness of the thermal insulation panel is approximately twice as thick as the impact-resistant outer skin. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the thermal insulation panel to approximately twice the thickness of the impact-resistant outer skin in order to install the panel to a lesser depth and a spacious aircraft cabin can be provided. Id. ^ 12 (“the thickness of the insulating layers can be decisively reduced, and therefore the aircraft cabin can be installed in the aircraft fuselage to a lesser depth and a spacious aircraft cabin can be provided.” (emphasis added)). 13. Claim 16 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites “the protective panel is applied in sections to the aircraft galley monument.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App’x). Belanger discloses a protective panel applied in sections of the beverage cart. Belanger ^ 27, 93, 105, 114, and 143. 14. Claim 17 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites “the open cell acoustic foam has a thickness that is at least twice a thickness of the carbon-fiber composite panel.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App’x). Mueller teaches that the thickness of the insulating layers can be decisively reduced. Mueller 112. And, Struve discloses that the open cell foam can be cut to a desired size and shape to form a layer. Struve Tj 28. Neither Mueller nor Struve disclose that the open celled acoustic foam has a thickness that is at least twice a thickness of the carbon-fiber composite panel. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the 9 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 art, absence a showing of criticality. One of skill in the art would have had reason to modify the thickness of the open cell acoustic foam to at least twice a thickness of the carbon-fiber composite panel in order to install the panel to a lesser depth and a spacious aircraft cabin can be provided (Mueller 112) and use the open cell acoustic foam of Struve et al. in order to provide an insulation material which is easy to use, easy to install as well as cost effective in terms of fabrication, installation and life cycle (Struve H 2 and 6). New Ground II: We determine that the combination of Gomes, Belanger, Mueller, Bhatnagar, Struve (as applied to claim 12 above) and further in view of Pannell suggests all of the limitations that would render claims 18 and 19 obvious. We make the following additional findings of fact regarding the combination of Gomes, Belanger, Mueller, Bhatnagar, Struve and Pannell: 15. Claim 18 depends for claim 12 and additionally recites “anchor pins [to] attach the impact resistant outer skin to carbon fiber composite panel.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App’x). Pannell discloses anchor pins for joining carbon fiber composite materials in aerospace applications. Pannell col. 12,11. 38—42, col. 13,11. 3-8, and 15-18. 16. Claim 19 depends for claim 18 and additionally recites that the “anchor pins are covered by an anchor pin cover.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App’x). The anchor pins of Pannell are covered by an anchor pin cover. Pannell col. 16,11. 21—31 and Figure 10. 17. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the anchor pins of Pannell to attach the impact resistant outer 10 Appeal 2017-001503 Application 13/773,908 skin to the carbon fiber composite panel to withstand impact shock and prevent peel failure. Panel col. 12,11. 6—10. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and enter new grounds of rejection against claims 12—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). This decision contains a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the Examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . 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). REVERSED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation