The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 7, 2021

2019006904 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2021)

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.
14/541,633 11/14/2014 William Charles Beavin 14-1382-US-NP 6634
63759 7590 04/07/2021
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
YUN, CARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/07/2021 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 WILLIAM CHARLES BEAVIN, MARK DAVID SCHULTE, and
MICHAEL E. CROW
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–20. See Final Act. 1.
Claim 11 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to lean product modeling systems (LPM) and
methods. LPM system includes:
a plurality of modeling objects representing multiple
perspectives of the product, a plurality of corresponding
modeling object properties identifying characteristics of those
product modeling objects which are used to configure product
simulations, and a plurality of corresponding modeling object
property data items that define those characteristics and are
reflected in product simulations and analyses. All product
modeling objects may be linked in an integrated product
knowledge model that reflects ontological characteristics of the
product or the application as a service and a corresponding
operational environment. The integrated product knowledge
model defines an authoritative source for any specific
corresponding modeling object within the plurality of
corresponding modeling objects.
Abstr. Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
10. A method for manufacturing a product or implementing
an application as a service, using a lean product modeling
analysis and simulation system, the method comprising:

providing input to at least one non-transitory computer
readable storage medium via manipulating at least one physical
input device, the input comprising:

a plurality of modeling objects having a plurality of
corresponding modeling object properties and a plurality of
corresponding object property data items, the plurality of
modeling objects representing multiple perspectives of the
product or the application as the service, the plurality of
corresponding modeling object properties identifying
characteristics of those product modeling objects which are used
to configure product simulations, and wherein the plurality of
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

3
modeling objects, at least some of the plurality of corresponding
modeling object properties, and the plurality of corresponding
object property data items are tailored for each lifecycle phase of
the product or the application as the service;

an integrated product knowledge model that ontologically
defines the product or the application as the service, wherein at
least some of the plurality of modeling objects are linked to the
integrated product knowledge model, wherein a plurality of tools
are stored in the at least one non-transitory computer readable
storage medium, wherein each tool from the plurality of tools is
configured to interact with multiple objects of the integrated
product knowledge model and conflicts between different tools
in the plurality of tools are avoided because each tool deals with
a single ontology within the integrated product knowledge
model, and wherein the integrated product knowledge model
identifies a corresponding authoritative source for corresponding
modeling objects of the plurality of modeling objects; and

manufacturing the product or implementing the
application as the service using at least one device based on a
product design produced by the lean product modeling analysis
and simulation system.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bulman US 2003/0051255 A1 Mar. 13, 2003
Heller US 2011/0208788 A1 Aug. 25, 2011
Alfassi US 2014/0324393 A1 Oct. 30, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Heller. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

4
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 12–15, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable by Heller in view Alfassi. Final Act. 5.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
by Heller, Alfassi, and Bulman. Final Act. 15.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
by Heller and Bulman. Final Act. 16.

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
“[A]nticipation is a question of fact.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.)
812, 814–15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing
claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part
of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might
supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple,
distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to
achieve the claimed invention.
Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1371 (citation omitted).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

5
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections.
Appellant does not make separate arguments in support of
patentability of any particular claim or claim grouping. Accordingly, the
claims subject to each ground of rejection will stand or fall with claim 10.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant contends that the Heller reference does not disclose that
each tool from a plurality of tools are configured to interact with multiple
objects of an integrated product model where conflicts between the various
tools are avoided because each tool deals with a single ontology. Appeal Br.
10. Appellant further contends that the Heller reference does not teach that
each ontology access multiple objects and that they inherently are not
conflicting with other tools because they are in their own universe relying on
paragraphs 107 and 123 of Heller as the Examiner maintains. Appeal Br.
10. Appellant also contends that nothing in these two passages from Heller
discuss a tool where an ontology and a tool are not equivalent. Appeal Br.
11.
We note that the Examiner actually relies upon “¶ [0107] to ¶ [0123]”
rather than just the two paragraphs asserted by Appellant (see Appeal Br. 10)
(arguing only paragraphs 107 and 123)) and the Examiner additionally,
identified paragraph 112. Ans. 4, 17. Moreover, the Examiner finds that
each tool deals with a single ontology, identifying “SAEM deals with
Application Extensibility Ontology 1202, and Semantic Integration Model
deals with Adaptation Ontology 1208, and Semantic Service Model deals
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

6
with Service Ontology 1206.” Ans. 17. The Examiner further finds that
“conflicts are avoided because each tool deals with a separate ontology and
it is in its own universe or domain. The semantic models (i.e. tools) can
interact with different business objects 1214 and 1216 through the business
domain ontology.” Ans. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief
and Reply Brief as discussed below. It is well settled that, during patent
examination, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The broadest reasonable interpretation
standard requires the words of the claims to be given their “broadest
reasonable meaning . . . in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although we interpret claims
broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we must not import
limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1323 (citations omitted). Furthermore, “[a]lthough an inventor is indeed
free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this
must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Intellicall, Inc. v.
Phonometrics, 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“Where an
inventor chooses to be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon
meanings, he must set out his uncommon definition in some manner within
the patent disclosure.”)). However, the “prosecution history” should also be
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

7
consulted. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
(Fed. Cir. 2015). “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the
record evidence.’” Id. (citing In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed.
Cir. 2011)).
Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported
by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,
705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL
2477843, at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/fd0
9004693.pdf; see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We note that the language of independent claim 10 recites “at least
one,” “a plurality of modeling objects,” “a plurality of tools,” but the
limitations do not require more than 2 or 3 objects and tools in the integrated
product knowledge model. Based upon a broad but reasonable
interpretation, the claimed product or service has this limited complexity
rather than the complexity of “designing a new commercial jet aircraft may
be extremely time intensive and expensive, involving the coordination of
potentially thousands of experts.” Spec. ¶ 2. Based upon this interpretation,
we agree with the Examiner that the Heller reference discloses the claimed
invention. The Examiner identifies Figure 12 of the Heller reference which
shows the plurality of models to the meta-model layer containing plural
ontologies interfacing to the business domain ontology and the business
function ontology and business objects ontology. Ans. 17.
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

8
Appellant generally contends that the Heller reference not only does
not disclose that each tool from a plurality of tools are configured to interact
with multiple objects of an integrated product model where conflicts
between the various tools are avoided because each tool deals with a single
ontology, but does not even teach or suggest such features. Appeal Br. 11;
Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant additionally generally contends that the Examiner
mischaracterizes “that ontology means a tool in its own universe/domain,
thus Heller teaches the same,” from an Interview Summary, dated
September 4, 2018.2 Appeal Br. 11.
In this case, we find these attorney arguments and conclusory
statements unpersuasive. Appellant has not identified any specific definition
of any of the terms in the claims to show error in the Examiner’s factual
findings.
Appellant further argues that Heller does not disclose (nor teach or
suggest) that each tool deals with a single ontology within the integrated
product knowledge model and based upon reliance on Appellant’s
Specification is an impermissible use of hindsight with the benefit of
Appellant’s disclosure. Appeal Br. 12.

2 We note that Appellant’s representative filing the Appeal Brief is not the
same representative attending the interview and therefore has no firsthand
knowledge of the statements deemed to be mischaracterized. We do not rely
upon the Examiner’s statements in our decision, but note that Appellant has
not identified any specific definition beyond “Appellant respectfully submits
that the definition of ‘ontology’ is with respect to how the term is used
within the Appellant’s specification. It is not necessarily the definition of
ontology used by Heller.” Appeal Br. 12.

Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

9
We note that Appellant’s argument regarding impermissible hindsight
is not relevant to the anticipation rejection because the rejection is based
upon the disclosure of Heller and is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
finding of anticipation of representative independent claim 10.
We note that Appellant does not specifically identify what a “conflict”
is and the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter merely identifies the
Specification paragraphs 66, 89 and Figure 14, but the Specification merely
repeats similar language without providing any definition or context for
“conflicts” to differentiate the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 4–5.
Additionally, we note the claim language of independent claim 10
recites a method for manufacturing a product or implementing an application
as a service with the use of alternative claim language and the Specification
discusses real-world products and services. See Spec. ¶ 42 (“LPM [Lean
Product Modeling] systems, methods, and environments may be used with
respect to the development of physical products, a tangible process that
achieves a tangible result, or to computer implemented software (or a
nontransitory computer readable storage medium) that relates to a technical
effect being a tangible machine or a physical transformation.”). Therefore,
the product, application as a service, objects, and tools are not specifically
defined in the Specification or in the express claim language. As a result,
Appellant’s argument based on “conflicts” are avoided does not differentiate
the claimed invention from the disclosure of the Heller reference.
As a result, we find Appellant’s arguments to be general arguments
for patentability which are unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and the finding of anticipation of representative
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

10
independent claim 10 and dependent claim 17, not separately argued, based
upon the Heller reference.

35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–15, and 18–20
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art
or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual
basis . . . .” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent
Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It
may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
“Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view of the
teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

11
“The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested
by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction
manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that
the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” Fritch, 972 F.2 at 1266 (citing
In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 18, Appellant does not set
forth separate arguments for patentability of the independent claims 1 and 18
and presents arguments with respect to independent claim 1. We select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will
address Appellant’s arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). As
a result, independent claim 18 will stand or fall with representative
independent claim 1. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did
not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant sets forth a separate heading for arguments for
patentability of dependent claims 5 and 16, but relies upon the arguments
advanced with respect to independent claims 1 and 10.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellant relies
upon the same arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 10,
addressed above, that the Heller reference does not disclose that “conflicts
between different tools in the plurality of tools are avoided because each tool
deals with a single ontology within the integrated product knowledge
model,” as addressed above. Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

12
Appellant further argues that Heller is silent with respect to disclosing
that each tool in a plurality of tools are configured to interact with multiple
objects of an integrated product model where conflicts between the various
tools are avoided because each tool deals with a single ontology. Appeal Br.
15.
The Examiner further emphasized that “conflicts between different
tools in the plurality of tools are avoided because each tool deals with an
single ontology within the integrated product knowledge model (see Fig. 12,
¶ [0107] to , ¶ [0123].” Ans. 8; see also Ans. 17–18. Appellant does not
address the totality of the sections relied upon by the Examiner and only
generally addresses Heller paragraphs 107 and 123. See generally Reply Br.
2–4.
Appellant also contends that data artifacts disclosed by Alfassi do not
have the “same versatility as the disparate tools,” as recited by claim 1.
Appeal Br. 15.
We note that the Examiner’s obviousness ground for rejection of
claim 1 merely relied upon the Alfassi reference for teaching and suggesting
the “at least some corresponding elements of the plurality of disparate tools
are linked to at least one corresponding concept in the integrated product
knowledge model.”3 Ans. 8.
We note that claim 1 does not set forth the claim language “same
versatility as the disparate tools” and any argument thereto does not
therefore show error in the factual findings or conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments

3 The Examiner also finds that the Heller reference discloses linking objects
to the model in the anticipation rejection of independent claim 10. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

13
fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing
in the claims.”); see also In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope
and are therefore unpersuasive.”).
Appellant discusses paragraph 50 which is directed to Figure 5 of
Alfassi, but this paragraph was not applied by the Examiner, and Appellant
further contends that Alfassi discloses that each data artifact is linked to a
single “object” of the engineering reference model. Appeal Br. 15–16.
Appellant also argues that each data artifact in Alfassi may be linked to
various engineering reference models which differs from what is recited by
claim 1, in the sense that each tool in claim 1 is configured to interact with
multiple objects of the same integrated product knowledge model. Appeal
Br. 15–16.
We also note that Appellant does not specifically address those
portions of the Alfassi reference relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection
relying upon Figures 6B–6C and paragraphs 52 and 53. Ans. 8.
We further note that Appellant merely reiterates that the Alfassi
reference does not teach or suggest that “conflicts between different tools in
the plurality of tools are avoided because each tool deals with a single
ontology within the integrated product knowledge model” as required by
claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. But we note that the Examiner relied upon the
Heller reference in the grounds of rejection for this portion of the claim.
Final Act. 7; Ans. 7. Therefore, Appellant’s argument does not show error
in the rejection as applied by the Examiner.
As a result, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or ultimate conclusion of obviousness of representative independent
Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

14
claim 1 and independent claim 18 not separately argued and dependent
claims 2–4, 6–9, 12–15, 19, and 20.

Claims 5 and 16
Appellant relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to
independent claims 1 and 10 and does not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of claims 5 and 16. Appeal Br. 16–17. As a result, we group
claims 5 and 16 as falling with their respective independent claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–10 and 12–20 is
AFFIRMED.

Appeal 2019-006904
Application 14/541,633

15
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10, 17 102(a)(1) Heller 10, 17
1–4, 6–9,
12–15, 18–
20
Heller, Alfassi 1–4, 6–9,
12–15, 18–
20

5 103 Heller, Alfassi,
Bulman
5
16 103 Heller, Bulman 16
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–20

RESPONSE
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