The Boeing CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 12, 20212020005023 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/270,048 05/05/2014 Mark Lawrence Younie 60070/12-1360-US-NP 6237 122219 7590 10/12/2021 von Briesen & Roper, s.c./ The Boeing Company One North Franklin Street Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER OCHYLSKI, RYAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/12/2021 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): bmatthias@vonbriesen.com patentadmin@boeing.com ynunez@vonbriesen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK LAWRENCE YOUNIE Appeal 2020-005023 Application 14/270,048 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2020-005023 Application 14/270,048 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for manufacturing a foam insulation panel. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for manufacturing a foam insulation panel to include a plurality of panel features conforming to corresponding features of an aircraft sidewall assembly, the method comprising: rotating first and second roller dies on parallel axes and configuring the roller dies to matingly interact, positioning the dies in direct contact with a foam insulation block to advance the foam insulation block along a travel path, each of the first and second roller dies having axially spaced tiered sets of smoothly contoured rolling contact surfaces, each of the axially spaced tiered sets having a distinct mating complementary aspect on each of the first and second rollers for forming a distinct panel feature; compressing opposed first and second surfaces of the foam insulation block in a first direction; positioning a cutter along the travel path downstream of the first and second roller dies, and orienting the cutter to cut transversely through the foam insulation block in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction to separate the foam insulation block into a single piece excess layer and the foam insulation panel, such that the single piece excess layer is contiguously formed by the cutter and separated by the cutter from the entire foam insulation block, including all edges of the foam insulation block; and translating the foam insulation block through each of the tiered sets in the first direction by an offset distance determined from the aircraft sidewall assembly to provide a distinct feature from each of the tiered sets in the foam insulation panel. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2020-005023 Application 14/270,048 3 Name Reference Date Novak US 2006/0118676 A1 June 8, 2006 Contreras US 7,955,544 B2 June 7, 2011 REJECTION Claims 1–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Novak in view of Contreras. OPINION Claims 1–8 We need address only the sole independent claim among claims 1–8, i.e., claim 1. That claim requires first and second roller dies each having axially spaced tiered sets of smoothly contoured rolling contact surfaces, each of the axially spaced tiered sets having a distinct mating complementary aspect on each of the first and second rollers. Novak discloses an aircraft sidewall panel assembly (200) comprising a curved sidewall (140) having therein panel openings (180) configured to oppose window openings (280) in the aircraft’s outboard wall (275) (¶¶ 35, 36; Fig. 2). Contreras discloses a method “for continuously shaping the surface of a slab of compressible or cellular polymer material, such as polyurethane foam” (col. 1, ll. 7–9). Contreras describes the method as follows: As the foam slab 70 is fed into the roller assembly 50 in the direction of arrow 68 shown in FIG. 3, the first die roller 52 acts against the top surface of the slab 70 so that the underside surface of the slab 70 is pressed or extruded into the recesses 60 formed in the pressure roller 54. Concurrently, the outer circumferential surface of the pressure roller 54 acts against the underside surface of the slab 70 to that the top surface of the slab 70 is pressed or extruded into the Appeal 2020-005023 Application 14/270,048 4 spaces between the raised projections 58[2] of the first die roller 52. Just beyond the nip of minimum spacing between the rollers 52, 54, the slab 70 advances against the cutting edge of a blade 72 that is positioned between the rollers 52, 54 in a cutting plane substantially tangent to the outer circumferential surface of the first die roller 52. The blade 72 cuts away those portions of cellular polymer material extruded into the spaces between the raised projections 58, sparing those portions of the cellular polymer material that were extruded into the recesses 60 formed in the second die roller or pressure roller 54. As a result, a scrap sheet 74 is cut away from the surface of the foam slab 70. The scrap sheet 74 consists of the material removed to make recesses in the cut product 76. [(col. 4, ll. 14–34)] The figure is Contreras’s Figure 3. The Examiner finds that “since Novak teaches the need for tiered structure, a person having ordinary skill and ingenuity in the simple art of 2 The projections (58) can be hexagonal or other “regular shaped raised projections, such as circular, triangular, square, diamond, heptagon, septagon, octagon, and so on, as well as any irregularly-shaped raised projections” (col. 3, ll. 15–22, 26–29). Appeal 2020-005023 Application 14/270,048 5 foam-shaping would be able to readily modify foam rollers as inspired by Contreras to achieve the tiered shape, since as Contreras shows, it is extremely well-known that in order to make a desired shape, the shape imparter comprises the inverse of the desired shape” (Ans. 3–4). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been able to understand that, based on Contreras’s showing of matching a desired output shape with a die shape, in order to produce a tiered structure as shown in Novak, a tiered die structure would be an obvious shape to use in order to accomplish that goal and form windows and trim structures as claimed” (Non-Final 4). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Thus, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, it is not enough for the Examiner to merely assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make a foam roller having a tiered structure and would have understood that a tiered roller structure is an obvious shape for making Novak’s sidewall. The Examiner must establish that the applied references would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to use a tiered roller structure. The Examiner’s reliance upon unsupported assertions for a reason to use rollers having a tiered structure indicates that the Examiner’s finding and obviousness conclusion are based upon impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellant’s disclosure. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–8. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section Appeal 2020-005023 Application 14/270,048 6 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). Claims 9–13 The Appellant does not separately argue independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10–13 (Appeal Br. 12). We therefore limit our discussion to claim 9. Claims 10–13 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(10iv) (2013). The Appellant relies for patentability of claim 9 on the limitation: “translating the foam insulation block in the first direction by an offset distance determined from the aircraft sidewall assembly first feature with a first male die portion provided on the first roller die and a first female die portion provided on the second roller die” (Appeal Br. 11). The Appellant argues: “Contreras neither suggests nor teaches such comparative offsets produced by his rollers in directions orthogonal to Appellant’s second direction 120, i.e. the direction in which the foam block 109 moves toward the cutting blade 118. As such, Appellant submits that this particular combination of references fails to render obvious Appellant's independent claim 9” (Appeal Br. 12). The Appellant’s Figure 3’s second direction 120 is Contreras’s Figure 3’s direction 68. Contreras’s die roller (52) and pressure roller (54) are offset in the direction orthogonal to direction 68 (Figs. 1, 3). Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10–13 that stand or fall therewith. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed in part. Appeal 2020-005023 Application 14/270,048 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–13 103 Novak, Contreras 1–8 9–13 TIME PERIOD FOR 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 IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation