Ex Parte Wilcynski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

11767790 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PAUL J. WILCYNSKI
____________________

Appeal 2011-009884
Application 11/767,790
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: GAY ANN SPAHN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009884
Application 11/767,790

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1, 3-11, 13, 15-22, 24, and 25. Claims 2, 12, 14, and 23 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an aircraft having multiple seating
configurations and a cabin width of 158 inches. Spec. 1, para. [0001], Spec.
2, para. [0006], and Spec. 5-6, para. [0017]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An aircraft system, comprising:
a fuselage having a generally circular cross-
sectional shape and one or more passenger cabin
portions, the individual cabin portions including-
a floor connected to the fuselage; and
a plurality of passenger seats attached to the floor
in a configuration selected from a first seat-row
arrangement and a second seat-row arrangement,
each of which is implementable in the fuselage,
wherein the first seat-row arrangement includes a
twin aisle configuration and the second seat-row
arrangement includes a single aisle configuration, and
wherein the seats in either the first seat-row
arrangement or the second seat-row arrangement
have between a three abreast and a six abreast seating
configuration, and
wherein the individual seat-rows in either the first
seat-row arrangement or the second seat-row
arrangement include a first outboard portion adjacent
to an inner wall at a first side of the fuselage and a
second outboard portion adjacent to an inner wall at a
second, opposite side of the fuselage, and wherein the
lateral distance between the first outboard portion and
Appeal 2011-009884
Application 11/767,790

3
the second outboard portion is about, but not greater
than, 158 inches.
REFERENCES
Humphries
Daharsh
Sankrithi
Davis
US 4,799,631
US 5,104,065
US 6,152,400
US 6,471,158 B1
Jan. 24, 1989
Apr. 14, 1992
Nov. 28, 2000
Oct. 29, 2002
Butt US 2006/0102785 A1 May 18, 2006
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Humphries and Butt. Ans. 4.1
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Humphries, Butt, and Davis. Ans. 4-5.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Humphries, Butt, and Sankrithi. Ans. 5.
Claims 7, 11 13, 16-19, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Humphries, Butt, and Daharsh. Ans. 5-6.2
Claims 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Humphries, Butt, Daharsh, and Davis. Ans. 8.

1 At page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner stated that claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9
were rejected “under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated” by Humphries and
Butt. However, it is clear from the Examiner’s discussion that these claims
were rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
references rather than under § 102(b) as anticipated. In addition, Appellant
addresses the Examiner’s rejection as if it were made under § 103(a), not
§ 102(b). See App. Br. 5-20 and Reply Br. 2-4.
2 We have consolidated the Examiner’s grounds of rejection set forth on
pages 5 and 6 of the Answer, since they are based on the same combination
of references.
Appeal 2011-009884
Application 11/767,790

4
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 13 are drawn to “[a]n aircraft system” and
and “[a]n aircraft,” respectively, with a generally circular cross-section
fuselage having a “seating envelope”3 of “about, but not greater than, 158
inches,” and one or more passenger cabin portions including, inter alia, a
plurality of passenger seats arranged in either a single-aisle or twin-aisle
configuration. App. Br., Clms. App’x. Likewise, independent claim 19 is
drawn to “[a] method of configuring an interior of an aircraft” having a
“lateral seating envelope” of “about, but not greater than, 158 inches.” Id.
All of the rejections at issue are based, at least in part, on the
combination of Humphries and Butt to render obvious independent claims 1,
13, and 19. Ans. 4-8. The Examiner found that Humphries teaches the two
claimed seat configurations – i.e., the single-aisle and twin-aisle
configurations – in a single aircraft. Ans. 4 (citing Humphries, figs. 1 and
2). As for the seating-envelope limitation, the Examiner relied on Butt’s
teaching that “[n]arrow-body jets [such as the Airbus® 321, 319, and 320,
and Boeing® 737 and 757] have a maximum cabin width of about thirteen
feet,” or 156 inches.4 Ans. 4 (citing Butt, para. [0025]). The Examiner
concluded that “it would have been obvious to []one of ordinary skill in the

3 Although this term is not in claim 1, claim 1 calls for the lateral distance
between the first and second outboard portions, i.e., a point adjacent to an
inner wall at a first side of the fuselage and a point adjacent to an inner wall
at a second opposite side of the fuselage, which is analogous to the seating
envelope, to be “about, but not greater than, 158 inches.” App. Br., Clms.
App’x.
4 There appears to be no dispute that the maximum-cabin-width dimension
discussed in Butt corresponds to the seating-envelope limitations of claims
1, 13, and 19, and that 156 inches is “about” 158 inches.
Appeal 2011-009884
Application 11/767,790

5
art at the time of the invention to modify Humphries . . . with the cabin size
of Butt . . . in order to place the seats in a normal well know[n] sized
narrow-body aircraft.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Butt’s statement regarding the
maximum cabin width of narrow-body jets is inaccurate. App. Br. 14. In
support of this assertion, Appellant submitted the “Declaration of R. Blake
Emery,” Director of Differentiation Strategy at The Boeing Company.5 Mr.
Emery declared that the Airbus® narrow-body jets have a cabin width of
145.7 inches – not 156 inches or 13 feet – and that the Boeing® narrow-
body jets have a cabin width of 137.8 inches. Emery Decl., para. 8.6 Mr.
Emery further declared that “at the time of the present invention . . . there
was not, and currently is not, a commercial aircraft available having a
seating envelope of about 158 inches.” Id.
In response, the Examiner appears to accept Mr. Emery’s assertions
regarding the Airbus® and Boeing® narrow-body aircraft cabin sizes, i.e.,
that they are less than 13 feet – not “about” 13 feet. Ans. 9. The Examiner
asserts, however, “[t]he fact that the given aircraft are less th[a]n the 13 feet
limit is moot as the Butt . . . reference clearly teaches that this is a maximum
limit and inherently all aircraft in the narrow-body range should fall below
the 13 feet limit.” Ans. 9. The Examiner also notes that “about” in the

5 The Boeing Company is the real party in interest in this appeal. App.
Br. 1.
6 In the Reply Brief, Appellant offered further support for these values in
the form of “Dimensions and Key Data” documents for the Airbus® aircraft,
and a “Technical Characteristics” document for the Boeing® 757 aircraft,
and indicated that these documents are available online. Reply Br. 3, notes
1-3, 5.
Appeal 2011-009884
Application 11/767,790

6
limitation “about . . . 158 inches” is not defined, and could mean a 2, 10 or
20 inch difference. Id.
The Examiner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Butt teaches or suggests a seating envelope of about 158 inches. As
stated above, the Examiner acknowledged, in light of the Emery Declaration
and in spite of Butt, that the aircraft discussed in Butt have a cabin width
“less than the 13 feet limit.” “Less than” 13 feet is not necessarily the same
as “about” 13 feet,7 and would not, without more, convey to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention the “about 158 inches”
limitation, primarily because it has no lower limit.
Nor are we persuaded that the undisputed actual cabin widths of the
Airbus® and Boeing® narrow-body jets found in the Emery Declaration,
i.e., 145.7 inches or less, would be understood by a person of ordinary skill
to be “about 158 inches.” Appellant’s Specification states that
the term “about” can mean both an exact value and a value
having a reasonable tolerance from the exact value. In a
particular embodiment, for example, the seating envelope
dimension [i.e., cabin width] can have a reasonable tolerance of
approximately 1/2 to 2 inches. In still other embodiments, a
reasonable tolerance for a particular dimension can be
determined by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Spec., para. [0017]. The actual cabin widths of the Airbus® and Boeing®
narrow-body jets are at least 12 inches less than 158 inches, a difference that
falls outside of the “reasonable tolerance” provided in the Specification.
Further, the Examiner has not provided any evidence or persuasive argument
that there might be other circumstances in which a person of ordinary skill

7 “Less than 13 feet” conveys the range 0 to 13 feet, whereas “about 13
feet” conveys 13 feet plus or minus a reasonable tolerance.
Appeal 2011-009884
Application 11/767,790

7
would determine 145.7 inches to be about 158 inches. Accordingly, the
Examiner has not supported, by a preponderance of the evidence, the finding
that Butt teaches the “about . . . 158 inches” limitation. None of the other
references are relied upon to cure this deficiency. See Ans. 4-8. We
therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1,
13, and 19, and their dependent claims 3-11, 15-18, 20-22, 24, and 25, under
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Humphries and Butt alone and in combination
with one or more of Davis, Daharsh, and Sankrithi.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-11, 13,
15-22, 24, and 25 is reversed.
REVERSED

mls