Ex Parte Slesinski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 3, 2016

13459718 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/459,718 04/30/2012
128836 7590 11/07/2016
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raymond J. Slesinski
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.
B86918 1020US.l (0005.0) 8339
EXAMINER
LI, TRACYY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2016 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):
ipdocketing@wcsr.com
patentadmin@Boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND J. SLESINSKI
Appeal2015-006610
Application 13/459,718
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN F. HORVATH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .. • .. ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....AI/'\. £',"1 Appeuant' seeKs our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27.
Claims 12, 18, and 24 are objected to as dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all
of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 8.
Claim 7 has been cancelled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-006610
Application 13/459,718
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to the installation of fasteners
using computer-generated fastener installation instructions based on
automated fastener recognition. Spec. 1: 14--15. The fasteners may be
hardware devices, such as externally-threaded bolts or screws, rivets, pins,
etc., that mechanically join or affix two or more components or structures
together. Spec. 5:27-29. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
projecting an identifier of an instruction set, the identifier
being projected onto a structure about a location at which a
fastener or fastener collar is to be installed;
capturing an image of the projected identifier from the
structure;
determining the identifier from the captured image;
retrieving the instruction set based on the determined
identifier; and
programming a tool for installing the respective fastener
or fastener collar according to the retrieved instruction set.
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 8, 13, 14, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Haisty et al. (US
2011/0169924 Al; published July 14, 2011) ("Haisty") and Kumar et al. (US
2011/0262018 Al; published Oct. 27, 2011) ("Kumar"). Final Act. 4--5.
Claims 4, 9, 15, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Haisty, Kumar, and Gamboa et
2
Appeal2015-006610
Application 13/459,718
al. (US 2011/0113613 Al; published May 19, 2011) ("Gamboa"). Final
Act. 5---6.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Haisty, Kumar, and
Nielsen et al. (US 2011/0191058 Al; published Aug. 4, 2011) ("Nielsen").
Final Act. 6-7.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Haisty, Kumar, and Sarh (US
2011/0239448 Al; published Oct. 6, 2011). Final Act. 7-8.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the combination of Haisty and Kumar does not disclose or suggest
"programming a tool for installing the respective fastener or fastener collar
according to the retrieved instruction set," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-
7; Reply Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellant contends Haisty, upon which the
Examiner relies for teaching the disputed limitation, does not teach that its
"Operator Tool" is a tool programmed for installation of a fastener or
fastener collar, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7.
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. In response to Appellant's
arguments, the Examiner finds:
Haisty facilitates an assembly or other manufacture process, by
providing ordered step-by-step assembly or manufacturing
guidance work instructions, and the set of assembly instructions
3
Appeal2015-006610
Application 13/459,718
may direct that the following steps be performed: (iv) insert a
series of different sized and types of fasteners into the pre-drilled
holes, and the instructions in the systems includes assembly
software tools (Authoring Tool, Configurator Tool and Operator
Tool), that means these software/program tool[s are] used to
provide the instructions in an assembly or other manufacture
process to install fastener.
Ans. 9-10 (citing Haisty i-fi-1285, 769).
We have reviewed Haisty and concur with Appellant. Haisty is
directed to "projection of three-dimensional text, images and/or symbols in a
substantially or fully undistorted manner onto one or a plurality of surfaces
of a variety of different three-dimensional objects." Haisty i1283; see also
id at i19. Haisty teaches a system that "provid[es] ordered step-by-step
assembly or manufacturing guidance work instructions that teach or guide
one or a plurality of person[ s] or entities that are to assemble or manufacture
any three-dimensional object or system, or component part, surface or skin
thereof .... " Haisty i1285.
Haisty teaches the "Authoring Assembly Software Tool" allows a user
to put all of the required or desired components for a particular project into a
computer. Haisty i1287. Haisty teaches the "Configurator Assembly
Software Tool" allows a user to decide where within a particular assembly,
manufacturing or other work area or environment the optical projectors
being employed can be located, the number of optical projectors that are
required for a particular assembly, manufacture, process or situation to have
a good coverage of an object, part or skin, or a portion thereof, that is being
projected upon, the number of workers that may be required or desired for
executing one or more concurrent processes, and/ or other such information.
Id. Haisty teaches an "Operator Assembly Software Tool" guides a user
4
Appeal2015-006610
Application 13/459,718
through a process, such as an assembly of a three-dimensional object, or part
or skin, step-by-step in an ordered manner using the file created by the
Configurator Assembly Software Tool along with a wide variety of optional
programming aids, such as annotation, pictures, video, symbols, drawings
and/or audio, to aid the workers throughout the assembly, manufacturing or
other process. Id.
Appellant persuades us that Haisty fails to teach or suggest
programming a tool for installing a fastener or fastener collar," as required
by claim 1. Instead, Haisty teaches "[ w ]hen the Operator Tool is run using
the published file, the Operator Tool will generally present each step to the
user for the user to execute, and when the user is finished, the user would
select the "next" button[]." Haisty i-f 766 (emphasis added). As such, we are
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Haisty teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of the other
independent claims, 13, 19, and 27, which each recite a corresponding
limitation, or of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 14, 20, and 21.
Claims 4---6, 9-11, 15-17, 22, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon Haisty, Kumar, and various additional
references. The Examiner does not find these additional references cure the
deficiencies identified in the teachings of Haisty identified supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 4---6, 9-11, 15-17,
22, 23, 25, and 26 for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
We do not reach Appellant's further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive for all rejected claims.
5
Appeal2015-006610
Application 13/459,718
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-11, 13-17, 19-
23, and 25-27.
REVERSED
6