Ex Parte Bobrek

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

14052041 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/052,041 10/11/2013 Pavlo Bobrek
91753 7590 03/20/2018
General Electric Company
Global Patent Operation-Aviation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
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.
266201/71966-0225 1079
EXAMINER
WIDHALM DE RODRIG, ANGELA MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAVLO BOBREK 1
Appeal2017-008539
Application 14/052,041
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-16, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Applicant, GE
Aviation Systems LLC. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008539
Application 14/052,041
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to a data communications network for
an aircraft having a plurality of remote input units providing data, subscriber
units consuming messages, and a data communications network that
includes a central data server. Spec. i-f 5. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed
subject matter and read as follows:
1. A data communications network for an aircraft having a
plurality of synchronized remote input units (RIU s) providing
data and subscriber units consuming a message based on at
least some of the data for operation of the aircraft, comprising:
a central data server (CDS) asynchronously connected to
the synchronized Rills;
a current value table (CVT) provided in the CDS and
storing the current version of the data;
a message queue for each subscriber unit; and
a message scheduler configured to asynchronously form
a message from the CVT and send the message to the message
queue of at least the corresponding subscriber unit for the
message;
wherein the message queues are configured to
asynchronously receive messages and synchronously send
messages to the subscriber unit corresponding to the message
queue.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-7, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Danielsson et al. (US 2013/0159477 Al; June 20, 2013)
and Box et al. (US 8,390,325 B2; Mar. 5, 2013). Final Act. 3-6.
2
Appeal2017-008539
Application 14/052,041
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Danielsson, Box, and Anderson et al. (US 2006/0276943
Al; Dec. 7, 2006). Final Act. 6-7.
Claims 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Danielsson, Box, and Franchuk et al. (US 2006/0070079 Al; Mar. 30,
2006). Final Act. 7-8.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Danielsson, Box, and Greenblat et al. (US 7,103,008 B2; Sept. 5,
2006). Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this
appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur
with the Examiner's conclusions. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Danielsson and Box. Br. 9-1 7. First, Appellant argues
Danielsson does not teach or suggest "a central data server (CDS)
asynchronously connected to the synchronized RIUs." Br. 12-13. In
particular, Appellant argues Danielsson teaches a plurality of computers S l -
S4 that have storage and exchange data messages through network 2. Id. at
13 (citing Danielsson i-f 43). Appellant argues Danielsson's compututers,
3
Appeal2017-008539
Application 14/052,041
which can act as a flight control or mission control computer, are not central
data servers. Id. Appellant argues:
The claimed central data server is, foremost, a centralized
storage unit for data, that is, receiving data frames from the set
of asynchronously connected remote input units, storing the raw
data from the remote input units, and forming messages from the
stored raw data for the subscriber units. The claimed central data
server is positioned between the remote input units and the
subscriber units, connected by way of a set of ingress ports and
egress ports.
Br. 13.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Although the
claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, arguments must be commensurate in
scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
( CCP A 1982 ). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the claim does not
require the central data server be involved in receiving data, forming
messages, or storage functions. Ans. 11. The Examiner further finds
Danielsson teaches a plurality of computers S 1-S4, where at least one of the
computers acts as a mission control computer and stores data and messages.
Ans. 11-12 (citing Danielsson ,-r,-r 43-45). Appellant's argument is
unpersuasive because it does not identified any error in these findings,
instead focusing on features not claimed. See Br. 13. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Danielsson teaches the recited
"central data server."
4
Appeal2017-008539
Application 14/052,041
Appellant also argues Danielsson does not teach or suggest "a current
value table (CVT) provided in the CDS and storing the current version of the
data," as recited in claim 1. Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellant argues:
The claimed current value table is a predetermined table having
a fixed set of data locations and data frame sizes for each
location. For each data frame that is written to the current value
table, a series of checks ensure the write operation doesn't
corrupt the structured table of current data values by ensuring the
value type, data size, and even the data source (e.g. the ingress
port where the data arrived from) is valid, verified, or authorized.
Thus, the current value table is a preset location for storing a set
of known data, wherein individual data frames can be updated or
replaced with "more current" data as it is received.
Br. 13. Appellant argues Danielsson does not teach a value table, let alone a
current value table storing the current version of data. Id. at 14.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Danielsson teaches one or more of computers S 1-S4
(the claimed "central data server") contains a configuration data module that
stores configuration files with parameters that are used by the operating
system and other system elements. Ans. 13 (citing Danielsson i-fi-146, 66, 73,
78). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the configuration files are updated
as data changes and are used to store the most recent data. Id. (citing
Danielsson i-fi-166, 73, 75-78, 126). Appellant's arguments regarding
validating, verifying, and authorizing value type, data size, and data source
are unpersuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of the
claims.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding Danielsson
teaches or suggests "a message scheduler configured to asynchronously form
a message from the CVT and send the message to the message queue of at
5
Appeal2017-008539
Application 14/052,041
least the corresponding subscriber unit for the message," as recited in claim
1. Br. 14-15. Specifically, Appellant argues "[ t ]he claimed message
scheduler receives data from the central data server and current value table,
and constructs or forms a specific data message from the data values for a
corresponding subscriber unit. The constructed message is provided to a
message queue associated with a particular corresponding subscriber unit."
Id. at 14. Appellant argues Danielsson merely teaches communicating in
allocated time slots, which is not the same as a message queue. Id. at 14.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Danielsson teaches sending messages to subscriber
units according to a schedule. Ans. 15 (citing Danielsson i-fi-f 100, 102, 109,
110. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Danielsson teaches each end
node (the claimed "subscriber unit") is associated with a different path and
queueing port (i.e, "message queue") for receiving messages. Ans. 15
(citing Danielsson i-fi-1 95, 96, 124 ). The Examiner also finds Box teaches
message queues for subscriber units to receive messages. Id. (citing Box
36:60-66, 52: 15-22, 62:60-67, 63:30-34, 13:24-30, 15:45--49, 21:33-54,
25:66-26:3). Appellant's arguments regarding the message scheduler
receiving data from the central data server and current value table and
forming a specific data message are unpersuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Moreover, Appellant's have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner's factual findings regarding the
"message queues" taught by Danielsson or Box. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Danielsson teaches or suggests the
claimed "message scheduler."
6
Appeal2017-008539
Application 14/052,041
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Danielsson and Box. We also sustain the obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 2-15, for which Appellant does not offer
separate arguments. See App. Br. 4-9. We also do not sustain the rejection
of independent claim 16 as unpatentable over Danielsson, Box, and
Greenblat, for which Appellant offers the same arguments. See Br. 17-19.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-16.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7