Ex Parte Russell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12331297 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/331,297 12/09/2008 Jeffrey Craig Russell
81485 7590 09/28/2016
Thompson Hine LLP
Intellectual Property Group
10050 Innovation Drive
Suite 400
Dayton, OH 45342-4934
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.
08-0704 2355
EXAMINER
LIN, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
ipdocket@thompsonhine.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY CRAIG RUSSELL
Appeal2015-003899
Application 12/331,297
Technology Center 2100
Before KAMRAN JIV ANI, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-16, and 21-24, which are all the claims pending in
this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 2 and 17-20 have been cancelled. App. Br. 18, 21 (Claims App'x).
Appeal2015-003899
Application 12/331,297
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to automated generation of custom
design configurations for complex systems, such as airplanes. Spec. ,-i 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A method for generating a design configuration for a
product, the method comprising:
obtaining a custom specification that describes at least
one option for the product;
obtaining predefined configuration data that includes:
a commodity feature definition that describes a
plurality of commodities associated with the
product;
a commodity interface definition that describes
functional interface requirements among said
plurality of commodities;
a design table that associates said commodity
feature definition and said commodity interface
definition for a commodity; and
a hierarchy of said plurality of commodities;
generating the design configuration as a function of said
custom specification and said predefined configuration data,
wherein said hierarchy of said plurality of commodities controls
an order in which said plurality of commodities is applied to
said product for automatic generation of the design
configuration and said commodity interface definition with said
design table ensure coordination among said plurality of
commodities;
reviewing the design configuration for conformance to an
engineering requirement;
triggering an update, upon detecting a nonconformance
of said predefined configuration data of said design
configuration to said engineering requirement; and
2
Appeal2015-003899
Application 12/331,297
updating said predefined configuration data based at least
in part upon said nonconfonnance of said design configuration.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-14, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Arnaud et al. (US 2004/0148045 Al; July 29,
2004), Strevey et al. (US 6,035,305; Mar. 7, 2000), Yamamoto et al. (US
2005/0071029 Al; Mar. 31, 2005), and Gerlovin et al. (US 7,006,956 Bl;
Feb. 28, 2006). Final Act. 2-16.
The Examiner further added Chen et al. (US 2003/0101110 Al; May
29, 2003) to reject claims 9 and 15 (Final Act. 16-17), Lee (US
2007 /0233434 A 1; Oct. 4, 2007) to reject claims 10 and 16 (Final Act. 18),
and Ron Sanchez, Strategic Product Creation: Managing New Interactions
of Technology, Markets, and Organizations, 14:2 EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT
J. 121, 121-13 8 ( 1996) ("Sanchez") to reject claims 23 and 24 (Final Act.
18-19).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
3
Appeal2015-003899
Application 12/331,297
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the
cited combination because an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been
motivated to combine Arnaud, Strevey, Yamamoto, and Gerlovin. App. Br.
10-15. In particular, Appellant argues Arnaud, Strevey, and Yamamoto are
directed to structuring configuration information for a product, while
Gerlovin is directed to a CAD/CAM package used to define the geometry of
a part. Id. at 11-12. Appellant argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would not
have utilized Gerlovin' s software to review the product information
disclosed by Arnaud, Strevey, and Yamamoto for conformance to an
engineering requirement. Id.
Appellant also argues Gerlovin is non-analogous art to the other cited
references. App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellant argues the present
application is directed to configuring a complex product, while Gerlovin is
directed to integrating analysis of the geometry of a component with a
CAD/CAM package. Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited
references, including Gerlovin. Arnaud discloses a computerized method for
configuring industrial products. Ans. 3 (citing Arnaud, Abstract, ,-i,-i 1, 31 ).
Strevey discloses a computerized method for structuring product
configuration information of a complex product. Id. (citing Strevey,
Abstract, Fig. 7B, 3 :37--40). Yamamoto discloses a computer system to
estimate the influence of component defects on a product's design. Id.
(citing Yamamoto ,-i,-i 16, 33). All three of these references are directed to
computer software that aids a user in designing a product, such as an aircraft.
Gerlovin, similarly, is directed to computer software that aids a user in
4
Appeal2015-003899
Application 12/331,297
designing a product, in particular a component used in construction of other
products. Ans. 4 (citing Gerlovin, Fig. 4, 1:19-23, 2:5-10, 6:15-18).
Gerlovin specifically teaches software that verifies that a product satisfies
engineering requirements. Id. Appellant argues an ordinarily skilled artisan
would not have been motivated to combine Gerlovin with the other cited
references because it is directed to software for a component, instead of
software for an entire product. App. Br. 14.
A prior art reference is analogous to an application if it is in the same
field of endeavor or if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). A prior art reference is reasonably pertinent if it is one which,
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
itself to an inventor's attention in considering his or her invention as a
whole. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because we agree with
the Examiner that Gerlovin relates to the same field of endeavor as the
present application, namely software to verify a product design. See Ans. 5
(citing Gerlovin 6: 16-18). Moreover, Gerlovin is also reasonably pertinent
to the problem with which the inventor is involved-verification that a
product design conforms with engineering requirements. Id. Accordingly,
we find the Examiner's expressed motivation to combine the references
(verifying a product design, including every component in the design, meets
engineering requirements ) is based on rational underpinnings. Id.
Moreover, Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to show
incorporating Gerlovin's engineering analysis verification into the product
5
Appeal2015-003899
Application 12/331,297
design system taught by the combination of the other references would have
been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art."
See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)).
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellant
has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable
over Arnaud, Strevey, Yamamoto, and Gerlovin. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues the patentability of independent claim
11 for the same reasons as claim 1. See App. Br. 12-13. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 11 for the same reason as set forth above. We
also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3-10, 12-16, and 21-24,
which were not argued separately with particularity. See id. at 14-15.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-16, and
21-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6