The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 25, 2021

2021002167 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 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.
15/677,242 08/15/2017 Mohammad Barakatain 17-0963-US-NP (10623-80) 4708
104057 7590 10/25/2021
Joseph M. Rolnicki
Sandberg Phoenix and von Gontard
120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 1600
Clayton, MO 63105
EXAMINER
FILOSI, TERRI L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2021 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
uspto@sandbergphoenix.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MOHAMMAD BARAKATAIN and
MUSTAPHA RAHMANI

Appeal 2021-002167
Application 15/677,242
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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 1–20. See Appeal Br. 1 (Title Page).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

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. 2.
Appeal 2021-002167
Application 15/677,242

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates “to an aircraft wing construction
assembly.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claims 1 and 10, and method claim 17, are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. An aircraft wing construction assembly comprising:
a rib having a length that extends between a first end of
the rib and a second end of the rib;
a first spar post at the first end of the rib, the first spar
post is integrally formed as one piece with the rib, the first spar
post is configured to be attached to a first spar of the aircraft
wing construction; and,
a second spar post that is separate from the rib, the
second spar post is attached to the second end of the rib, the
second spar post is configured to be attached to a second spar of
the aircraft wing construction.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Scott US 4,356,616 Nov. 2, 1982
Yamashita et al.
(“Yamashita”)
US 2004/0056152 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5 and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Yamashita.
Claims 10–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated
by Scott.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Yamashita and Scott.
Appeal 2021-002167
Application 15/677,242

3
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–9 as anticipated by Yamashita
Appellant argues all these claims together. See Appeal Br. 5–7. We
select claim 1 for review, with dependent claims 2–5 and 7–9 standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner and Appellant differ as to the interpretation of claim 1,
and particularly the recited “configured to” language. The Examiner states
that this “configured to” language expresses intended use and is functional
“and is therefore being interpreted as not having patentable weight.”
Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 3–4. Appellant disagrees, stating that the
Examiner failed “to interpret the ‘configured to’ terms as ‘means for’”
language, and as a consequence, the Examiner engaged in “a clear
misinterpretation of the claim terms.” Appeal Br. 6. In other words,
Appellant contends the limitation “‘the second spar post is configured to be
attached to a second spar of the aircraft wing construction’ recites the second
spar post having means for being attached to a second spar of the aircraft
wing construction.” Appeal Br. 6 (italics added). For purposes of further
analysis only, and with no presumption as to its correctness, we will employ
Appellant’s “means for” interpretation of this claim limitation. However,
this is not the deciding issue and even presuming Appellant’s interpretation,
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites first and second spar posts. Appellant contends,
“[t]here is no first spar post at the first end of [Yamashita’s] rib that is
integrally formed as one piece with the rib.” Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner,
on the other hand, has provided an annotation of Figure 2 of Yamashita
specifically detailing that which the Examiner deems to be the recited first
Appeal 2021-002167
Application 15/677,242

4
spar post. See Final Act. 4. Appellant does not explain how this “front/left-
most end of rib 14” illustrated in Yamashita’s annotated Figure 2, which the
Examiner identifies as the “first spar post at the first end of the rib,” fails to
be integral “with the remaining portion of the rib” as recited. Final Act. 3.
Appellant’s contention above is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant also challenges what the Examiner identifies as
Yamashita’s corresponding second spar post (i.e., item 12d). See Final
Act. 3, 4. Appellant contends, “[t]he Yamashita reference fails to describe a
second spar post that is separate from the rib” and also fails to teach that
“the second spar post is configured to be (having means for being) attached
to a second spar of the aircraft wing construction as recited in claim 1.”
Appeal Br. 6 (italics added). Appellant contends that this is the case because
Yamashita’s corresponding second spar post “12d is not ‘configured to’ be
attached to a second spar, but is an integral part of the spar 12.” Appeal
Br. 7; see also id. at 9 (“there is no second spar post that is separate from the
rib in the Yamashita reference”).
Indeed, Yamashita clearly states that the second spar post “12d is
integrally formed on the intermediate spar 12.” Yamashita ¶ 26. However,
the “separate” limitation recited in claim 1 is between the second spar post
and the rib, not between the second spar post and the spar. Yamashita’s
corresponding rib is identified by the Examiner as item 14 (see Final Act. 3)
and paragraph 28 of Yamashita discusses rib 14 being coupled “at its rear
portion to the reinforcing partition wall 12d of the intermediate spar 12 by
rivets 22.” See also Yamashita Figs. 2, 3, 5 (illustrating rivets 22 connecting
rib 14 and second spar post 12d together). Accordingly, the Examiner states,
“[c]learly, element 12d is separate from the rib BEFORE it is riveted thereto,
Appeal 2021-002167
Application 15/677,242

5
and therefore teaches a second spar post that is separate from the rib, as set
forth in” claim 1. Ans. 8. Appellant does not explain how this is otherwise.
Regarding the limitation of the second spar post “configured to be
attached” to a spar, Appellant does not explain how Yamashita’s 12d is not
configured to be attached to spar 12 since it is described as being “integrally
formed on” spar 12. See Yamashita ¶ 26 (“A reinforcing partition wall 12d
is integrally formed on the intermediate spar 12.”). In other words,
Appellant fails to explain how something designed to be “integrally formed
on” spar 12 (Yamashita ¶ 26) is yet not “configured to be attached” to
spar 12 in the same manner described by Appellant, or equivalents thereof.
See also Ans. 5.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–9 as being anticipated by
Yamashita.
The rejection of claims 10–20 as anticipated by Scott
Appellant argues claims 10–20 together. See Appeal Br. 7–9. We
select independent claim 10 for review, with claims 11–20 standing or
falling with claim 10.
Claim 10 recites first and second spar posts, each “having a lateral
portion.” The Examiner references Figure 3 of Scott, and particularly
brackets 84 and 86 illustrated therein as the corresponding first and second
spar posts. See Final Act. 7, 8. Brackets/spar posts 84 and 86 are L-brackets
having laterally projecting legs 94 and 96 that “attach to the front and rear
spars . . . by fasteners.” Scott 4:34–41; see also Scott Fig. 3. Regardless of
such explicit teaching and illustration, Appellant contends that Scott “fails to
describe a lateral portion of the first spar post being configured to be (having
Appeal 2021-002167
Application 15/677,242

6
means for being) attached to a first spar” and, likewise, “a lateral portion of
the second spar post being configured to be (having means for being)
attached to a second spar.” Appeal Br. 7. In other words, Appellant fails to
explain how Scott’s bolted connection with corresponding spars fails to
teach this limitation when Appellant’s Specification also teaches a bolted
connection between the spar posts and their corresponding spar. See Spec.
¶¶ 28, 31.
Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s finding regarding Scott’s
teaching of the “integrally constructed” limitation (i.e., “the first spar post
being integrally constructed as one piece”). See Final Act 7; Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant proffers several dictionary definitions of “integrally” stating these
are “the meanings intended by the application specification and claims.”
Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner does not dispute these definitions, i.e., “the
definitions are broad enough to encompass Examiner’s recitation of teaching
the claim limitations in the prior art of Scott.” Ans. 6; see also id. at 7
(discussing construction “as ‘a complete unit’”). Consistent with these
understandings, we have been instructed that the term “integral” has been
interpreted to cover more than a unitary, one-piece, construction. See, e.g.,
In re Kohno, 391 F.2d 959, 960 n.4 (CCPA 1968); In re Dike, 394 F.2d 584,
590 n.5, (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967-968 (CCPA 1965);
and In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In view of these teachings and Appellant’s proffered definitions, we
are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Scott’s “bracket 84
attached to the web 46 by the rivets 92 does not describe a complete unit”
such that Scott fails to teach or disclose the limitation “the first spar post
being integrally constructed as one piece with the rib.” Appeal Br. 8. In
Appeal 2021-002167
Application 15/677,242

7
short, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s
“interpretations of the Scott reference are clear misinterpretations of the
claims’ terms.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant additionally references a different embodiment of Scott
(i.e., “Figure 4”) contending that this different embodiment likewise fails to
disclose the recited first and second spar posts. Appeal Br. 9. However, the
Examiner did not rely on this different embodiment for teaching these
limitations, and hence Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner
error.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10–20 as being anticipated by Scott.
The rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Yamashita and Scott
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and Appellant contends that this
dependent claim is allowable because parent claim 1 is allowable. See
Appeal Br. 9. We disagree that the Examiner erred in rejecting parent
claim 1. See above. Accordingly, and as no further arguments were
presented specifically as to claim 6, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of this claim as being obvious in view of Yamashita and Scott.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–9 102 Yamashita 1–5, 7–9
10–20 102 Scott 10–20
6 103 Yamashita, Scott 6
Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2021-002167
Application 15/677,242

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED