Ex Parte McCoskey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 2011

10226922 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2011)

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.
10/226,922 08/23/2002 William Robert McCoskey JR. 7784-000504 (BOEING
02-00
5666
65961 7590 05/23/2011
HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
DINH, TIEN QUANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM ROBERT MCCOSKEY, JR.,
KENNETH A. HARTSOCK, and
THEODORE P. NYKREIM
____________________

Appeal 2011-002897
Application 10/226,922
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: TERRY J. OWENS, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JENNIFER D.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002897
Application 10/226,922
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
William Robert McCoskey, Jr. et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 40-42, and 56-58
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brenneis (US
6,684,593 B2, iss. Feb. 3, 2004), Noda (US 6,502,788 B2, iss. Jan. 7, 2003),
Weiler (US 2,952,341, iss. Sep. 13, 1960) or Fant (US 3,995,081, iss. Nov.
30, 1976), and Spriggs (US 5,262,220, iss. Nov. 16, 1993). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Invention
The claims are directed to axial load carrying panels for primary
airliner structures. Spec., para. 2. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
8. A skin panel, comprising:
an axial load carrying skin;
a plurality of stiffeners integrally engaged with the axial
load carrying skin, the skin and the stiffeners being integrally
machined from a metal alloy as a single component structure;
at least one pocket having a periphery defined by the
plurality of stiffeners; and
a collar having a ramped transition portion disposed
substantially around a periphery of the pocket, and being
integrally engaged with the axial load carrying skin;
wherein the ramped transition portion is configured to
effectively hinder cracks in the skin from propagating through
the plurality of stiffeners.

Appeal 2011-002897
Application 10/226,922
3
OPINION
In contesting the rejection, Appellants argue claims 8, 40-42, and 56-
58 together as a group. Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 8 as representative, with the remaining
claims standing or falling with claim 8.
The Examiner found that Brenneis describes a panel as called for in
claim 8, with the exception that Brenneis “is silent on the collars having a
ramped transition portion and the fillet.”1 Final Rej. 2. The Examiner found
that Noda, Weiler, and Fant teach that collars having ramped transition
portions are well known. Id. The Examiner further found that Spriggs
teaches that fillets are well known in the art. Id. The Examiner found that
the ramped transition portions described by Noda, Weiler, and Fant “clearly
would prevent crack propagations,” and reasoned that one skilled in the art
would see that this is the case. Ans. 5. The Examiner then concluded that it
would have been obvious to incorporate the ramped transition portions and
fillets as taught by Noda, Weiler, Fant, and Spriggs in the collar of Brenneis
to make the aircraft panel stronger and more resistant to cracks. Final Rej.
2-3.
Appellants argue that Brenneis already describes an arrangement with
improved crack propagation resistance (by minimizing spacing between
stiffeners) and that, consequently, Brenneis would not have suggested a
desirability or need to go further to address the problem of crack
propagation. App. Br. 8. This argument seemingly urges us to apply a rigid
formula requiring a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the prior
art elements as proposed by the Examiner. The Supreme Court has stated

1 Representative claim 8 does not require a fillet in addition to the ramped
transition portion.
Appeal 2011-002897
Application 10/226,922
4
that such an approach is incompatible with its precedent concerning
obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of
the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”
Id. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 419).
It would have been apparent to any person having even a basic
understanding of materials, and stress, strain, and crack propagation in
structural elements, that abrupt interruptions in contour, such as corners, are
sources of stress concentrations and can develop cracks. It likewise would
have been apparent to such a person that gradual transitions, such as curved
contours for transitioning from a skin to a stiffener projecting from the skin
would be far more resistant to crack propagation than a sharp corner. Thus,
even without an explicit teaching or suggestion of a reason to provide such a
curved transition in any of the applied references, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have appreciated the structural advantages of such a gradual
curved transition from the skin to the stiffeners (supporting webs) in the
panel of Brenneis. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. See also Perfect Web
Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("while an
analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence … it also may include
recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of
ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference").
Appeal 2011-002897
Application 10/226,922
5
Appellants argue that “Weiler, Noda, and Spriggs merely show a fillet
radius, and not a ramped transition portion.” App. Br. 11. We agree with
Appellants that the curved transition region between the skin and stiffeners
taught in Weiler, Noda, Fant, and Spriggs could probably be fairly
characterized as comprising a “fillet radius.” However, it is not apparent,
and Appellants have not adequately explained, in either their Specification
or their Appeal Brief, how a “ramped transition portion” as called for in
claim 8 differs from a fillet radius. Indeed, claims 41 and 42, which depend
from claim 8, further recite the ramped transition portion as including an
outer surface having a generally concave curvature generally upwards from
the skin toward the stiffener. Such a curvature is consistent with a fillet
radius. Accordingly, the Examiner’s position that the gradual curved
transition taught by Weiler, Noda, and Fant, or some portion thereof,
satisfies the limitation of a “ramped transition portion” in claim 8 is
reasonable.
Appellants argue that Brenneis teaches away from providing crack
propagation resistance using a ramped transition portion. App. Br. 9-10.
We appreciate that Brenneis teaches using a high speed milling process to
form the panel (col. 3, l. 54; col. 5, ll. 41-43), which significantly reduces
manufacturing costs and fabrication complexity (col. 5, ll. 52-55), and
further teaches that an advantage of the integral structural component and
the disclosed fabrication technique is that spacing between successive
stringers can be minimized, thus making it possible to provide thinner
stringer geometries and improves rip-stopping or crack propagation stopping
characteristics (col. 5, ll. 60-67). However, we do not agree with Appellants
that either of these teachings by Brenneis would have discouraged a person
of ordinary skill in the art from providing ramped (e.g., curved) transition
Appeal 2011-002897
Application 10/226,922
6
portions as claimed, so as to constitute a teaching away from the proposed
modification. See In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path
that was taken by the applicant”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Prior art does
not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different
solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or
otherwise discourages the solution claimed.). Brenneis gives no indication
that the degree of effective thickening of the stringers that would result from
providing a fillet radius or ramped transition portion would present any
difficulty using the fabrication process taught by Brenneis. In fact, Brenneis
teaches that “the stringers can have individual thickness steps, or simply
stiffening webs may be provided with any required stepped-down or
stepped-up thickness, which is easily achieved with a chip-removing process
such as a milling process” (col. 4, ll. 30-34). See also Brenneis, figs. 1, 2,
and 4 (depicting substantial spacing between stiffening elements).
For the above reasons, Appellants have not convinced us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We sustain
the rejection of claim 8 and of claims 40-42, and 56-58, which fall with
claim 8.

Appeal 2011-002897
Application 10/226,922
7
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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

hh