THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2021

2020003890 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
15/006,230 01/26/2016 Stephen Dostert 15-1955-US-NP (800-125) 1799
107112 7590 09/27/2021
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
1423 Strassner Dr.
Suite 100
Brentwood, MO 63144
EXAMINER
KABIR, SAAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2119
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2021 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):
docket@splglaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN DOSTERT, JEFFREY L. MILLER, and
MICHAEL HONEA
____________________

Appeal 2020-003890
Application 15/006,230
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a composite-part analysis tool. The invention
includes a verification control unit that compares numerical control data
used to control operation of a forming system to computer-aided design

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-003890
Application 15/006,230

2
(CAD) data that includes an authoritative part definition. The verification
control unit determines whether the numerical control data is within one or
more conformance thresholds related to the CAD data. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A part analysis tool for analyzing aspects of a
composite part, the part analysis tool comprising:
a verification control unit that compares numerical
control data used to control operation of a forming system that
is used to form the composite part to computer-aided design
(CAD) data that includes an authoritative part definition for the
composite part, wherein the verification control unit determines
whether the numerical control data is within one or more
conformance thresholds related to the CAD data before the
forming system uses numerical control data to form the
composite part.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Garcia US 4,918,627 April 17, 1990
Runyon US 2013/0141300 A1 June 6, 2013

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Garcia and Runyon.2
Throughout this decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed November 25, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 29,
2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 17, 2020) for
their respective details.

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the prior rejection of claims 1, 10, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-003890
Application 15/006,230

3
ISSUE
Does the combination of Garcia and Runyon teach or suggest a
verification control unit that compares numerical control data used to control
operation of a forming system that is used to form a composite part to
computer-aided design (CAD) data that includes an authoritative part
definition for the composite part?
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “a verification control
unit that compares numerical control data used to control operation of a
forming system that is used to form the composite part to computer-aided
design (CAD) data that includes an authoritative part definition for the
composite part.” Independent claims 10 and 16 recite analogous limitations.
The Examiner finds that Garcia teaches the claimed comparison
between (a) “numerical control data used to control operation of a forming
system that is used to form the composite part” and (b) CAD data that
includes an authoritative part definition. Non-Final Act. 5–6, 9–10, and 12–
13, citing Garcia 4:37–42, 4:43–54, and 9:40–10:10.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings. Column 4, lines 37 et
seq. of Garcia teach details of a position sensing device that acquires
inspection data from a manufactured part. Column 4, lines 43 et seq. of
Garcia teach generation of a functional inspection gage, including the
transmittal of CAD data for a part to the computer. The cited section of
columns 9–10 of Garcia discusses the comparison of a manufactured part to
CAD data.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that while Garcia teaches the
comparison of 3D models of inspection gages to 3D models constructed
Appeal 2020-003890
Application 15/006,230

4
from inspection data obtained from a manufactured part, Garcia does not
teach comparing numerical control data used to control operation of a
forming system to CAD data that includes an authoritative part definition, as
the independent claims require. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 3.
We find that the Examiner’s combination of Garcia and Runyon fails
to teach or suggest all the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 16. As
a result, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1–20. The
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.

CONCLUSION
The combination of Garcia and Runyon does not teach or suggest a
verification control unit that compares numerical control data used to control
operation of a forming system that is used to form a composite part to
computer-aided design (CAD) data that includes an authoritative part
definition for the composite part.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Garcia, Runyon 1–20

REVERSED