Ex Parte BobrekDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 201814052041 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation