Ex Parte Bailey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13250241 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

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.
13/250,241 09/30/2011 Louis J. Bailey 11-0878 8404
64722 7590 11/17/2017
OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN, P.C.
570 LEXINGTON AVENUE
FLOOR 19
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
MAWARI, REDHWAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
JBROITMAN@OCFBLAW.COM
patentadmin @ boeing. com
patentdockets @ ocfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOUIS J. BAILEY and RYAN D. HALE
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Louis J. Bailey and Ryan D. Hale (Appellants)1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the Boeing Company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 19—22 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, and reads:
1. A method for processing flight information, performed by
one or more processors, comprising:
(a) obtaining a flight plan/route message comprising
first payload data representing a flight plan/route of an aircraft;
(b) processing the first payload data to derive a list of
waypoints and associated flight information in a form suitable
for use by a user;
(c) processing the list of waypoints and associated
flight information to derive second payload data representing an
updated flight plan/route of said aircraft;
(d) constructing an updated flight plan/route message
that includes said second payload data; and
(e) making available said updated flight plan/route
message with or without environmental information.
REJECTIONS3’4
I. Claims 1—4, 7—13, and 16—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pitts (US 5,208,590, issued May 4, 1993) and
Roy (US 2003/0030581 Al, published Feb. 13, 2003). Final Act. 2—5.
II. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pitts, Roy, and Deker (US 2008/0177432 Al, published
July 24, 2008). Id. at 5—6.
3 Herein, we refer to the second Examiner’s Answer dated December 11,
2014, as the “Answer” or “Ans.”
4 “System” claims 10—18 are not identified specifically by the Examiner in
the statement heading for rejection I or rejection II. See Final Act. 2—6; Ans.
4—8. However, the Examiner indicates that “claims 10—18 are rejected using
2
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
ANALYSIS
I: Claims 1—4, 7—13, and 16—18 over Pitts and Roy
Claims 1—4, 7—9, and 18
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, the steps of “(a) obtaining a flight
plan/route message comprising first payload data representing a flight
plan/route of an aircraft,” “(b) processing the first payload data to derive a
list of waypoints and associated flight information in a form suitable for use
by a user,” and “(c) processing the list of waypoints and associated flight
information to derive second payload data representing an updated flight
plan/route of said aircraft.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Pitts discloses all limitations recited in claim
1 except for payload data. Final Act. 2—3 (citing, e.g., Pitts, col. 3,11. 10-40,
Table II). The Examiner finds that Roy teaches payload data. Id. at 3 (citing
Roy 110). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
combine Pitts and Roy to improve the security of ground to aircraft
communication. Id. at 3.
Appellants contend that Pitts does not disclose a “flight plan” as
defined by Appellants. Appeal Br. 8. Particularly, Appellants contend that
this term is defined by the following passage in the Specification:
Flight plans are used to document basic information such as
departure and arrival points, estimated time en route, various
the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1—9.” Final Act. 6; Ans. 8
(bold typeface omitted). Claims 10-18 recite substantially the same
limitations as method claims 1—9, respectively, except in the context of a
system claim. See Appeal Br. 17—20 (Claims App.). Accordingly, we
understand that rejection I also applies to claims 10-13 and 17—19, and
rejection II also applies to claims 14 and 15. This appears to be Appellants’
understanding as well. See id. at 7, 14.
3
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
waypoints the aircraft must traverse en route, information
pertaining to those waypoints, such as actual or estimated altitude
and speed of the aircraft at those waypoints, information relating
to legs of the flight between those waypoints, and aircraft
predicted performance.
Id. at 2 (citing, Spec. p. 1,11. 8—13); Reply Br. 2. According to this
definition, Appellants contend, “a flight plan includes waypoints,
information regarding those waypoints, and information relating to legs
between those waypoints.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellants further contend that
“[a] person skilled in the art of flight planning knows that a waypoint is ‘a
point on the ground, predefined as a point of interest for the flight.’” Reply
Br. 3 (citing www.aviationterms.com).
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496
F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” Id. Applying these principles, we are not persuaded that the
above-quoted description cited by Appellants, which appears in the
Background section of the Specification, provides an explicit definition of
the term “flight plan.”
Nonetheless, we are persuaded that the claimed “first payload data
representing a flight plan/route of an aircraft” and the “second payload data
representing an updated flight plan/route of said aircraft” include waypoints,
as Appellants contend. Appeal Br. 8. Step (b) of claim 1 recites
“(b) processing the first payload data to derive a list of waypoints and
associated flight information in a form suitable for use by a user.” Step (c)
requires “(b) processing the list of waypoints” derived by step (b). It is our
understanding that “[deriving] a list of waypoints” from “the first payload
4
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
data representing a flight plan/route of an airplane,” as claimed, requires the
first payload data to contain data representing the waypoints, such that it can
be derived. This understanding is consistent with the description of the
operation of the flight plan/route processor set forth in the Specification. See
Spec. p. 20,1. 22—p. 22,1. 30. This passage describes waypoints derived
from the received message pertaining to the flight plan/route. For example,
the passage describes that the incoming aircraft message provides an aircraft
route and “[t]he route must be decoded and translated into a waypoint to
waypoint type of route with the associated data (e.g., known leg types,
altitude constraints, etc.).” See id. atp. 21,11. 24—26. The decoding and
translating of the message produces a decoded and translated flight plan
including a list of waypoints. See id. at p. 21,11. 3—30.
Pitts discloses an on-board system 11 for displaying information to
passengers in an aircraft passenger compartment. Pitts, col. 3,11. 10—12, Fig.
1. System 11 includes “a data processor 13 [which] receives messages
containing ///^/?/ information over a data bus 59 from various systems of the
aircraft.” Id. at col. 3,11. 13—15 (emphasis added), Fig. 1. Pitts describes the
operation of data processor 13, as follows:
Data processor 13 utilizes the received flight information and
determines the current phase of the flight plan of the aircraft, i.e.,
the system determines whether the aircraft is in “en route
cruise, ” “descent, ” etc. Once the current phase of the flight plan
has been determined, data processor 13 generates one or more
sequences of graphic display screens tailored to the current
phase of the flight plan for display to the passengers of the
aircraft. For example, if the aircraft is in an “en route cruise”
phase, data processor 13 may generate a sequence of displays
including a “ground speed and outside air temperature” screen
and a “flight plan ” screen, the latter showing a map of the route
of the aircraft. Whereas, if the aircraft is in a “descent” phase,
5
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
data processor 13 may generate a sequence of displays including
a “time to destination” screen and a “distance to destination”
screen.
Id. at col. 3,11. 24-40 (emphasis added). Figure 2 of Pitts shows graphic
display screens generated by the aircraft display system for different flight
phases of the flight plan. Id. at col. 2,11. 46-48, col. 3,11. 61—63.
Appellants contend Pitts does not disclose that the disclosed “flight
information” includes “a flight plan or flight route,” and the Examiner fails
to point to any portion of Pitts that discloses receiving a message containing
a ‘flight plan.’” Appeal Br. 8. Appellants contend that Roy does not define
the “payload” as “flight information.” Id. (citing Roy 1112).5
Appellants also contend that Pitts does not disclose the display of a
flight plan. Appellants assert that a map is not a flight plan. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants contend that Figure 2 of Pitts is a pre-stored map of a flight path,
and thus, is not a flight plan. Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants also contend that
the display shown in Figure 7 of Pitts is only “a map with a straight line
showing an idealized path of an oversized airplane icon.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants note that the map in Figure 7 includes cities, but contend that
“[although a city may be depicted as a point on a map, that point does not
constitute a ‘waypoint.’” Reply Br. 3. Appellants also contend that “[t]he
display of a map that roughly depicts the general path of an aircraft over a
geographical area, with not a single waypoint depicted, is not a ‘flight
plan.’” Appeal Br. 11.
5 Roy describes that “[t]he protocol data unit (PDU) transferred over the
ACARS network consists of two main components: a protocol header (6-1,
7-1); and the payload that carries the user data (6-2, 7-2).” Roy 1112.
6
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
Appellants point out that the Examiner fails to cite to any portion in
Pitts to support the finding that Pitts discloses step (b) of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 9; see Final Act. 3; Ans. 5. Appellants contend that Pitts does not teach
processing a flight plan, and, thus, does not disclose processing a flight plan
to derive a list of waypoints. Appeal Br. 10. Rather, Appellants contend
that Pitts determines the current phase of the flight plan by comparing
received flight information (not a flight plan) to a range of values pre-stored
in a range table, without having the flight plan itself. Appeal Br. 11; Reply
Br. 5.
Appellants also contend that Table II of Pitts, which the Examiner
finds discloses step (c) in claim 1, does not support this finding. Appeal
Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. Appellants note that Pitts describes the term
“waypoint” only twice; namely, in the descriptions “Distance to Waypoint”
and “Time to Waypoint” in Table II. Appeal Br. 9; see Pitts, col. 9,1. 65.
As explained by Pitts, “Table II provides a list of types of information
transmitted within an ARINC 429 data word and the respective octal label.”
Id. at col. 9,11. 30-32. Appellants assert that Pitts merely “effectively
acknowledges that information pertaining to waypoint[s] exists and that
information may be found within an ARINC data word.” Appeal Br. 10.
Referencing Table II, Appellants also note that Pitts describes that “[t]he
present system does not necessarily use all of the types of information that
are available.” Id.', see Pitts, col. 11. 34—36. Thus, Appellants contend, “Pitts
explicitly disavows that all of the types of information listed in Table II are
used in his display system and methodology.” Reply Br. 4.
We are persuaded that the Examiner’s finding that Pitts discloses all
limitations of claim 1 except for “payload data” is not supported by a
7
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
preponderance of the evidence. Pitts uses the term “waypoint” only in
Table II and does not provide any description clearly relating to this use of
the term. The Examiner does not otherwise identify any disclosure in Pitts
that establishes that the “Distance to Waypoint” and “Time to Waypoint”
information in Table II is related to “processing . . . first payload data to
derive a list of waypoints and associated flight information in a form suitable
for use by a user” or “processing the list of waypoints and associated flight
information to derive second payload data representing an updated flight
plan/route of said aircraft,” as recited in claim 1. Indeed, as noted by
Appellants, Pitts discloses that its system does not necessarily even use all
the information shown in Table II.
Further, we are persuaded by Appellants’ contention that Table VII of
Pitts, which shows “points of interest” (i.e., cities A, B, C and their
respective locations), does not disclose a list of waypoints that are derived
by processing payload data, as recited in step (b). Appeal Br. 11. We agree
with Appellants that “the mere fact that the airplane of Pitts is flying in the
vicinity of a city does not mean that the city (or any location therein) is a
waypoint that is part of the aircraft’s flight plan.'1'’ Id. (emphasis added).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
or claims 2-4, 7—9, and 18 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Pitts
and Roy.
Claims 10-13 and 16—18
As system claims 10—18 recite substantially the same limitations as
method claims 1—9, respectively, the Examiner has not established that the
combination of Pitts and Roy discloses or suggests a processor programmed
to perform operations (a)-(e) in claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain
8
Appeal 2015-003353
Application 13/250,241
the rejection of claim 10, or claims 11—13 and 16—18 depending therefrom,
as unpatentable over Pitts and Roy.
II: Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 over Pitts, Roy, and Deker
The Examiner’s application of Deker to reject claims 5 and 6, which
depend from claim 1, and claims 14 and 15, which depend from claim 10,
fails to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 over Pitts and
Roy. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 14, and 15
as unpatentable over Pitts, Roy, and Deker for the same reasons as those
discussed for claims 1 and 10.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—18 is reversed.
REVERSED
9