11609644 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

Ex Parte Hearing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 2016

11609644 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/609,644 78061 7590 Boeing (TLG) c/o Toler Law Group 8500 Bluffstone Cove Suite A201 Austin, TX 78759 12/12/2006 02/18/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John D. Hearing 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 06-0486 1448 EXAMINER XAVIER, VALENTINA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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 docketinggroup@tlgiplaw.com jj ordan @tlgiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN D. HEARING, EDWARD A. FROESE, and CHARLOTTE R. LIN Appeal 2014-001427 1,2 Application 11/609,644 Technology Center 3600 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRADLEYB. BAY AT, and AMEE E. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-8 and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Dec. 12, 2006), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 29, 2013), and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 28, 2013), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final Action," mailed Aug. 31, 2012) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Aug. 28, 2013). 2 Appellants identify The Boeing Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-001427 Application 11/609,644 According to Appellants, the invention relates to "methods, equipment[,] and systems used to quickly reconfigure or repurpose an aircraft without an extended out of service period." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 21 are the only independent claims on appeal. We reproduce below claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1. A modular pallet system for use in configuring an interior space of an aircraft comprising: a load bearing member removably attachable to a seat rail of a main cabin floor structure of an aircraft; and a pallet network system integrated into the load bearing member to equip the aircraft with mission systems, the integrated pallet network system comprising: at least one pallet-aircraft network connection mounted to a side surface of the load bearing member to provide a connection for connecting the integrated pallet network system to an external network; and at least one pallet-equipment network connection mounted to an upper surface of the load bearing member to provide a connection for connecting the integrated pallet network system to a network consumption devices. Appeal Br., Claims App. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1-8 and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Henley (US 7 ,063,562 B2, iss. June 20, 2006), with or without Official Notice as evidenced by Cantu (US 6,056,239, iss. May 2, 2000). See Final Action 2-5. 2 Appeal2014-001427 Application 11/609,644 ANALYSIS Claims 1--4, 6-8, 21-25, and 27 Initially, we note that Appellants argue each of claims 1--4, 6-8, 21- 25, and 27 together. Our analysis is directed to claim 1, and each of claims 2--4, 6-8, 21-25, and 27 stand or fall with claim 1. Appellants argue the rejection is in error because the [E]xaminer has not proffered any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Henley in the manner recited in the pending claims. In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the [E]xaminer to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 10. We note that in KSR, the Supreme Court discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious without an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation provided by the prior art. In particular, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that, "[t ]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Further, the Court stated that when considering obviousness "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR at 418. In this case, we agree with the Examiner's rational underpinning that it would have been obvious to move Henley's pallet- aircraft network connection to a side surface of its load-bearing member (Answer 5), inasmuch as the change would provide the predictable result of 3 Appeal2014-001427 Application 11/609,644 relocating the location of the pallet-aircraft network connection. Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Regarding Appellants' argument that "Henley neither discloses nor suggests panels [that] comprise a structure that enables standardized connections such that the panels may be connected into an integrated pallet network system" (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 4), we note that claim 1 does not recite anything about standardized connections. Thus, this argument directed to unclaimed advantages is not persuasive. "Finally," Appellants argue "the Examiner's reliance on In re Japikse is misplaced." Appeal Br. 10. More specifically, Appellants argue that, "[t]he structure of Henley is not capable of forming an integrated pallet network system. Rather, network connections must be mounted individually to the panels after the panels are in place, as clearly illustrated in Henley. Thus, In re Japikse does not apply to the pending claims." Id. at 11. We note, however, that even assuming arguendo we agree with Appellants that "Jn re Japikse [would] not apply to the pending claims" if"[t]he structure of Henley is not capable of forming an integrated pallet network system," and that "network connections must be mounted individually to the panels after the panels are in place, as clearly illustrated in Henley," Appellants do not establish, such as by reference to any evidence or with a persuasive line of technical reasoning, that Henley's structure is not "an integrated pallet network system." Restated, Appellants do not establish persuasively that "network connections ... mounted individually to the panels after the panels are in place" cannot reasonably be construed as "an integrated pallet network system" as claimed. We further note, for example, that relevant definitions of "integrated" include "1. combining or coordinating separate elements so 4 Appeal2014-001427 Application 11/609,644 as to provide a harmonious, interrelated whole ... [and] 2. organized or structured so that constituent units function cooperatively," which appear to describe Henley's device. 3 Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 21-25, and 27. Claims 5 and 26 Appellants argue the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 26 is in error because Cantu, the reference on which the Examiner relies to support a finding of Official Notice, "relates to convertible seating and sleeping operations and neither discloses nor suggests a modular pallet system as described and claimed in this application." Appeal Br. 11. Inasmuch as Appellants' argument fails to persuade us that a modification of Henley, based on a teaching in Cantu, would not have been obvious, the argument is not persuasive. Finally, Appellants' argument that "the [sic-Examiner] failed to identify any teaching or suggestion in Cantu which would motivate one skilled in the art to modify the prior art to include an integrated environmental conditioning system as recited in claims 5 and 26" is also unpersuasive of error. In this case, we agree with the Examiner's rational underpinning that it would have been obvious to integrate into Henley's load-bearing member an environmental conditioning connection (see Answer 6) inasmuch as the change would provide the predictable result of relocating the location of the connection. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 26. 3 From Dictionary .com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrated, last accessed Feb. 10, 2016. 5 Appeal2014-001427 Application 11/609,644 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 1-8 and 21-27. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6