Symmonds, Matthew M.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

2019004194 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

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.
13/584,084 08/13/2012 Matthew M. Symmonds 12-0574-US-NP 3019
63759 7590 06/02/2020
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 190809
DALLAS, TX 75219
EXAMINER
SADANANDA, ABHIJIT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW M. SYMMONDS
Appeal 2019-004194
Application 13/584,084
Technology Center 3600
Before BRYAN F. MOORE, LINZY T. McCARTNEY,
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8–12, 14–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–29.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
Appeal Brief 2, filed February 6, 2019 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-004194
Application 13/584,084

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “developing a product in a product
development environment that has a virtual product online world.”
Specification ¶ 1, filed August 13, 2012. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
1. A product development environment comprising:
a computer system comprising an integration hub
comprising:
a virtual product online world manager configured to
manage elements for a product under development in a virtual
product online world on the computer system, wherein a number
of organizations develop the elements within the virtual product
online world on the computer system by accessing the computer
system via a network such that a number of product development
systems develop the elements within the virtual product online
world on the computer system, and wherein the elements are
three-dimensional virtual representations of physical objects;
a product structure manager configured to manage a
hierarchy having a plurality of levels in which the elements for
the product are distributed, wherein the hierarchy identifies
where each element in the elements for the product is located in
the product with respect to other elements in the elements for the
product and elements on a lower level of the hierarchy that are
combined to form an assembly element on a higher level of the
hierarchy;
a transformer configured to exchange the elements with
the number of product development systems developing the
elements over the network and transform an element in the
elements received in a foreign file format from a product
development system in the number of product development
systems into a master file format used in the virtual product
online world on the computer system, wherein the transformer is
configured to:
receive a request from a first product development
system operated by a first organization to place the
Appeal 2019-004194
Application 13/584,084

3
element into the virtual product online world on the
computer system,
determine whether the element is in the master file
format or in a first foreign file format,
transform the element from the first foreign file
format into the master file format in response to a
determination that the element is in the first foreign file
format,
place the element in the master file format into the
virtual product online world,
receive a request from a second product
development system operated by a second organization to
access the element in the virtual product online world,
determine whether a format used by the second
product development system is the master file format or a
second foreign file format,
transform the element from the master file format
into the second foreign file format and send the element in
the second foreign file format to the second product
development system in response to a determination that
the format used by the second product development
system is the second foreign file format, and
send the element in the master file format to the
second product development system in response to a
determination that the format used by the second product
development system is the master file format; and
a security manager configured to operate within the virtual
product online world to manage information in the elements for
the development of the elements within the virtual product online
world based on a security policy, wherein the security manager
implements rules to handle sharing of information associated
with the elements such that clearance to access the assembly
element on the higher level of the hierarchy is required to access
the elements on the lower level of the hierarchy that are
combined to form the assembly element, and wherein the
Appeal 2019-004194
Application 13/584,084

4
elements include a security component that identifies security
requirements for the elements; and
a manufacturing system communicably coupled to the
computer system and configured to receive the elements in the
master file format and to create physical forms of the elements.
Appeal Br. 31–33.
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1, 4, 6, 8–12, 14–
16, 18, 19, 21–23,
25, 28, 292
103(a) Markvoort,
3 Thackston,4 De
Biswas5
26, 27 103(a) Markvoort, Thackston, De Biswas, Bhogal6
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “wherein the elements include a security component
that identifies security requirements for the elements.” Appeal Br. 33. The
Examiner found that Thackston teaches this limitation because Thackston
allegedly teaches that part design model and project specifications (“the
elements”) include data for determining whether to grant access to the model
and specifications (“a security component”). See Examiner’s Answer 9–10,
mailed March 8, 2019; see also Non-Final Act. 9–10. Appellant contends
that the Examiner erred because Thackston teaches storing the part design

2 Although the heading of this rejection does not include claims 14–16, 18,
and 19, the accompanying analysis makes clear that these claims also stand
rejected over Markvoort, Thackston, and De Biswas. See Non-Final Action
3–17, mailed June 29, 2018 (Non-Final Act.).
3 Markvoort et al. (US 2007/0061154 A1; March 15, 2007).
4 Thackston (US 6,295,513 B1; September 25, 2001).
5 De Biswas (US 2013/0144566 A1; June 6, 2013).
6 Bhogal et al. (US 2007/0079117 A1; April 5, 2007).
Appeal 2019-004194
Application 13/584,084

5
model and project specifications separate from the access data. See Appeal
Br. 20–21.
We agree with Appellant. Thackston teaches storing access data in
stored design and analysis access permission data module 860 and storing
part design model and project specification data in separate modules such as
manufacturing standards and specifications data module 850, stored baseline
part design model data module 865, and stored working copy part design
model data module 892. See, e.g., Thackston 14:31–33, 15:8–51, 16:34–36,
Fig 8, items 850, 860, 865, 892. The Examiner did not conclude that it
would have been obvious to modify Thackston’s system so that the part
design model and project specifications include the disclosed access data, let
alone provide a motivation for doing so. On this record, we therefore do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 4, 6, 8–11, 22, 23,
and 25–29, which depend from claim 1. Because the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 12, 16, and 19 has a similar deficiency, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims and their respective
dependent claims, claims 14, 15, 18, and 21.

Appeal 2019-004194
Application 13/584,084

6
CONCLUSION
The following table summarizes our decision for claims 1, 4, 6, 8–12,
14–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–29, the claims before us on appeal:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6, 8–
12, 14–16,
18, 19, 21–
23, 25, 28,
29
103(a) Markvoort, Thackston, De Biswas
1, 4, 6, 8–
12, 14–16,
18, 19, 21–
23, 25, 28,
29
26, 27 103(a) Markvoort, Thackston, De Biswas, Bhogal 26, 27
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 6, 8–
12, 14–16,
18, 19, 21–
23, 25–29

REVERSED