Ex Parte Ayotte

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2016

13773079 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131773,079 02/21/2013 LOREN THOMAS AYOTTE
62616 7590 10/21/2016
MOORE AND VAN ALLEN PLLC FOR BOEING
P.O. Box 13706
3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard, Suite 400
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12-0460-US-NP- l 65 7319
EXAMINER
ROSARIO, NELSON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2016 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):
iplaw@mvalaw.com
usptomail@mvalaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOREN THOMAS AYOTTE
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention registers a mobile station of a passenger
onboard a vehicle by receiving a message from the mobile station's near
field communications (NFC) module, where the message includes
information for registering the station with a passenger communications
system. See generally Abstract; Spec. i-fi-122-50; Figs. lA---C. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
1. A method for registering a mobile station of a
passenger, compnsmg:
receiving a message from a near field communications
(NFC) module of the mobile station by an NFC terminal of a
passenger communications system onboard a vehicle, the
message comprising information for registering the mobile
station with the passenger communications system for radio
frequency (RF) communications by the mobile station using the
passenger communications system; and
registering the mobile station with the passenger
communications systems based on the message.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Saravanan (US 2012/0200390 Al; Aug. 9,
2012), Christofferson (US 2010/0170947 Al; July 8, 2010), and Mondragon
et al. (US 2012/0174165 Al; July 5, 2012). Ans. 4--12. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Saravanan, Christofferson, ~.1ondragon, and Hansen (US
2006/0180647 Al; Aug. 17, 2006). Ans. 12-14.
The Examiner rejected claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Saravanan, Christofferson, Mondragon, and Margis (US
2009/0081947 Al; Mar. 26, 2009). Ans. 14--15.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SARA V ANAN,
CHRISTOFFERSON, AND MONDRAGON
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to ( 1) the Appeal Brief filed December
18, 2014 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed April 9, 2015
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 4, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
The Examiner finds that Saravanan discloses an NFC terminal of a
passenger communications system that receives a message from a mobile
station's NFC module, where the message comprises information for
registering the mobile station with the passenger communications system.
Ans. 4--5. The Examiner acknowledges that Saravanan lacks a passenger
communications system onboard a vehicle, and RF communications using
that system, but cites Christofferson and Mondragon for teaching these
features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5-7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on Saravanan and
Christofferson is misplaced because, among other things, both references
pertain to airport security systems-not registering a mobile station with a
passenger communications system as claimed-and, therefore, constitute
non-analogous art. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2. Appellant adds that
Mondragon's passenger controller 100 is not only not a mobile station of the
passenger, there is no need to register this controller because each controller
is (1) associated with one passenger seat; (2) part of the entertainment
system; and (3) assigned a unique network address. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br.
3--4. Appellant adds that even if Mondragon's controller and Seat Video
Display Unit (SVDU) could be considered analogous to the recited mobile
station and NFC terminal, respectively, Mondragon transmits an identifier
from the SVDU to the controller-a direction opposite from that claimed.
App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues other recited limitations
summarized below.
3
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
ISSUES
I. Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Saravanan,
Christofferson, and Mondragon collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1 )(a) receiving a message from an NFC module of a mobile station
by an NFC terminal of a passenger communications system onboard a
vehicle, the message comprising information for registering the mobile
station with the system for RF communications by the mobile station using
the system, and (b) registering the mobile station with the system based on
the message as recited in claim 1?
(2) receiving information about the mobile station for registering it
with the passenger communications system as recited in claim 2?
(3) locating the NFC terminal for initializing an NFC transmission
with the mobile station responsive to the station contacting a designated
feature at the passenger's seat onboard the vehicle as recited in claim 22?
II. Is the Examiner's proposed combination supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6--13, and 20
We begin by noting that a key aspect of claim 1 involves registering a
mobile station of a passenger with a passenger communications system.
Appellant's Specification does not define the term "registering," unlike other
terms whose definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See Spec. i-f 15
(defining "circuit," "module," or "system"); see also id. i-f 73 (defining "a,"
"an," or "the" and "comprising"). The Specification, however, notes in
4
Appeal2015-006183
Application I3/773,079
paragraph three that current aircraft communication systems require
passengers to enter a secure personal identification number (PIN) or other
security code to register with the communications system. In Figures IA to
IC and paragraphs 22 to 50, Appellant's disclosure details an exemplary
process for registering a mobile station of a passenger with a passenger
communications system on a vehicle, but does not limit the recited
registration to this particular example.
Although this description informs our understanding of the recited
registration, it does not limit our construction of the term "registering."
Accordingly, we construe the term "register" with its plain meaning which is
defined, quite broadly, as "to record automatically" or, alternatively,
"indicate," "to make a record of," or "note." MERRIAM WEBSTER'S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 984--85 (10th ed. I993).
With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on
the cited references for collectively teaching or suggesting the recited mobile
station registration. First, it is undisputed that Saravanan and Christofferson
disclose registration, albeit with an airport check-in security system. See
Reply Br. 2. As shown in Saravanan's Figure I, for example, travelers
provide essential registration details, such as name, address, passport
number, etc., by sending that information from mobile devices I IO-I40 to
"ID4Checkin Registration System" I 80 via connection 230, which can be
via an NFC reader. Saravanan i-fi-153, 55.
Although Saravanan's registration system is not used for a passenger
communications system onboard a vehicle that uses RF communications, we
nevertheless see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Mondragon for
teaching that feature. As shown in Mondragon's in-flight or vehicular
5
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
entertainment system in Figure 4, passenger controllers 1 OOa---d
communicate with respective SVDU s 400 to enable passengers to control
various aspects of content delivery and display on the SVDUs. See
Mondragon i-fi-f 15, 36, 47-50. Although the controllers' form factor and
touch screen functionality are similar to smart phones, controllers could also
be laptop computers. Id. i158.
As shown in Mondragon's Figures 6 and 7, the controller and the
SVDU each have transceivers for cellular, WLAN, Bluetooth, NFC, and
infrared communications, respectively. Id. i1 61. In one embodiment, when
a passenger moves a controller within the range of the associated SVDU' s
NFC transceiver, the SVDU's transceiver transmits the SVDU's identifier to
the controller, and then establishes a communication path through a packet
network to the SVDU, thus enabling the controller to send control
commands to the SVDU to control content delivery and display. Id. i-fi-173-
74; Fig. 8. A similar process occurs in the embodiment of Mondragon's
Figure 9 except that two different links with different data rates are
established. Id. i-fi-1 7 5-7 6.
Notably, the embodiment ofMondragon's Figure 10 routes phone
calls or text messages between passenger seats, thus enabling a passenger to
call another by entering or selecting the other passenger's seat identifier
(e.g., "2A" indicating row 2, seat A) using the controller. Id. i-fi-186-90. To
this end, the entered seat identifier of the called passenger is translated to a
network address that is assigned to the controller 100 corresponding to that
passenger's seat. Id. Based on this functionality, we see no error in the
Examiner's findings that Mondragon at least suggests a passenger
6
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
communications system onboard a vehicle that uses RF communications by
a mobile station, namely the controller. Ans. 5---6.
To be sure, Mondragon initially establishes communication between
the controller and SVDU by transmitting an identifier from the SVDU to the
controller in steps 802 and 804 of Figure 8-a direction opposite from that
claimed as Appellant indicates.2 App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4. But we see no
reason why information pertaining to the particular user of the controller
could not also be transmitted from the controller to the SVDU as part of
Mondragon' s registration process, particularly in view of Saravanan' s
wirelessly transmitting details pertaining to a passenger, including their
name, from a mobile device to a registration system in Figure 1. See
Saravanan ,-r 55. Such an enhancement would, among other things, provide
an additional identifier associated with a particular user of Mondragon's
controller, not just their seat number-a potentially useful feature given that
passengers may not necessarily remain in their initially-assigned seats, let
alone use the particular controllers assigned to those seats. Consequently, a
call routed to a particular seat (e.g., seat 2A) using Mondragon's system in
Figure 10 may not necessarily reach a particular passenger who may have
changed seats.
2 Notably, steps 802 and 902 in Mondragon's Figures 8 and 9 are labelled
"Transmit identifier to SVDU" (emphasis added), yet the identifier is
transmittedfrom the SVDU to the passenger controller 100 as indicated by
the arrow between steps 802 and 804 in Figure 8, and steps 902 and 904 in
Figure 9. Nevertheless, we still see no reason why registration information
could not be transmitted to Mondragon's SVDU for the reasons noted in the
opm10n.
7
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
Appellant's contention, then, that there is ostensibly no need to
register Mondragon' s passenger controller with the system because each
controller is (1) associated with one passenger seat; (2) part of the
entertainment system; and (3) assigned a unique network address (App. Br.
7-9; Reply Br. 3--4) ignores the above-noted advantages of additionally
identifying the particular user of that controller as part of Mondragon's
registration process to, among other things, facilitate communications
between particular passengers using the mobile stations. Similar advantages
from identifying particular users of the controllers during registration would
also be realized for off-plane communications using satellite/cellular
transceiver 1020 in Mondragon's Figure 10 that may involve financial
transactions pertaining to particular passengers. 3 See Mondragon i-fi-1 62, 86.
Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their
established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellant's arguments regarding
the cited references' individual shortcomings, then, do not show
nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accord Ans. 16 (noting this point).
Lastly, despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 5-7;
Reply Br. 2), we find the cited references constitute analogous art. Prior art
is analogous if it is ( 1) from the same field of endeavor regardless of the
3 Although Mondragon's Figure 10 labels the satellite/cellular transceiver
with numeral 1010 (which is also used for the headset), we presume that this
is a typographical error, and that numeral 1020 corresponds to this
transceiver as indicated in paragraph 86.
8
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Among other things, Saravanan, Christofferson, and Mondragon all
pertain to systems where passengers' mobile stations wirelessly
communicate data, and all involve registration, particularly in light of the
latter term's broad definition noted previously. Therefore, these references
are not only in the same field of endeavor as Appellant's invention, but are
also reasonably pertinent to Appellant's problem. That Appellant contends
that Saravanan and Christofferson are non-analogous to Mondragon (Reply
Br. 7) is of no consequence here, for it is well settled that the analogous art
test does not ask whether the prior art references are analogous to each
other, but rather asks whether the references are analogous to the claimed
subject matter-which they are. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325; see also In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we find the
Examiner's proposed combination is supported by articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness
conclusion.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 6-13 and 20 not argued separately with particularity.
Claims 2-5 and 14-17
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 reciting, in
pertinent part, receiving information about the mobile station for registering
it with the passenger communications system. Although Appellant reiterates
the alleged shortcomings of the cited references regarding the recited
onboard passenger communications system and registering a mobile station
9
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
with that system (App. Br. 10-11), we are unpersuaded by these arguments
for the reasons previously discussed. Moreover, nothing in the claim
precludes additionally receiving information about the user of Mondragon's
controller-based mobile station as discussed previously, for this information
would likewise be "about the mobile station," namely its user.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2, and claims 3-5 and 14--17 not argued separately with particularity.
Claim 22
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 reciting locating
the NFC terminal for initializing an NFC transmission with the mobile
station responsive to the station contacting a designated feature at the
passenger's seat onboard the vehicle. Despite Appellant's arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 11-12), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on the
functionality of Mondragon's Figure 8 for at least suggesting the recited
elements of claim 8. See Ans. 12. Appellant's contention that blocks 806
and 814 of that figure allegedly do not disclose the features of claim 22
(App. Br. 11) does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's additional reliance
on blocks 800, 802, and 804 in Mondragon's Figure 8 that at least suggests
locating an NFC terminal for initializing an NFC transmission with the
mobile station responsive to the station contacting a designated feature at the
passenger's seat onboard the vehicle, particularly in light of the
corresponding discussion in Mondragon's paragraphs 73 and 74, and the
relative location of the controller and SVDU at the passenger's seat as noted
previously and in paragraphs 36 to 39.
10
Appeal2015-006183
Application 13/773,079
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 22.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 18, 19, and 21. Ans. 12-15. Appellant reiterates similar arguments
made in connection with independent claims 1 and 13, and allege that the
additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies. App.
Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4--5. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11