Ex Parte Bunch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

12344381 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/344,381
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
12/26/2008
09/14/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian P. Bunch
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.
H0015155 (H000-1-1703) 6086
EXAMINER
LI, CELI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN P. BUNCH, PAULE. CHRISTIANSON, and
MICHAEL M. GROVE
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,3 81
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian P. Bunch et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 14--18, 22, 24, and 29-36. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part, designate our affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION, and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for presenting information on a display, the method
compnsmg:
displaying, on the display, terrain information, weather
reflectivity information, a boundary of a weather object
determined from the weather reflectivity information, and at least
one hazardous weather icon corresponding to the weather object,
wherein the at least one hazardous weather icon indicates a
determined hazard level associated with the weather object;
receiving, by a processor, a selection to display only the at
least one hazardous weather icon; and
in response to receiving the selection, controlling, by the
processor, the display to continue displaying the at least one
hazardous weather icon and suppress display of at least the
weather reflectivity information and the boundary of the weather
object,
wherein displaying the at least one hazardous weather icon
comprises displaying the at least one hazardous weather icon
with a size corresponding to the determined hazard level
associated with the weather object, and displaying the at least one
hazardous weather icon with a shape corresponding to a type of
the weather object.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Paramore
Finley
Jones
Gremmert
Szeto
Gueziec
us 7,109,913
us 7,161,525
US 2001/0049584 Al
US 2002/0039072 Al
US 2003/0016155 Al
US 2008/0109153 Al
2
Sept. 19, 2006
Jan.9,2007
Dec. 6, 2001
Apr. 4, 2002
Jan.23,2003
May 8, 2008
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 14--18, 22, 24, 29-33, 35, and 36 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gremmert,
Gueziec, and Jones.
II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gremmert, Gueziec, Jones, and Szeto.
III. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gremmert, Gueziec, Jones, and Finley.
IV. Claims 9, 12 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gremmert, Gueziec, Jones, and
Paramore.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 3, 14--18, 22, and 30
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 14--18, 22, and 30 together. See Appeal
Br. 7-11. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and
claims 3, 14--18, 22, and 30 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Gremmert discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for "displaying the at least one hazardous weather icon
comprises displaying the at least one hazardous weather icon with a size
corresponding to the determined hazard level associated with the weather
object" and "displaying the hazardous weather icon with a shape
corresponding to the type of weather." Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner
further finds that "Gueziec teaches displaying the at least one hazardous
3
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
weather icon comprises displaying the at least one hazardous weather icon
with a size corresponding to the determined hazard level associated with the
weather object (paragraph 0097)" and that "Jones teaches displaying the
hazardous weather icons with a shape corresponding to the type of weather,
such as twister icon for tornado, lightning bolt icon for lightning (paragraph
0049)." Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to modify "Gremmert's [method] by employing the well-
known or conventional features of size of icon corresponding to hazard
level, as disclosed by Gueziec, to enable the pilot to rapidly and accurately
identify the hazard level of weather condition" and "by employing the well-
known or conventional features of choosing the shape of an icon
corresponding to type of weather, as disclosed by Jones, to enable the pilot
to rapidly and accurately identify the type of hazardous weather." Id.
Appellants contend that one skilled in the art would "not have
modified the method disclosed by Gremmert in view of Gueziec such that
the polygon-shaped image 310 of Gremmert would have a size that
corresponds to an associated weather hazard level." Appeal Br. 8-9. In
support of this contention, Appellants argue that "[ m ]odifying Gremmert in
the manner proposed by the Examiner would have frustrated the intended
purpose of displaying the polygon-shaped images of Gremmert, such that
there would have been no suggestion or motivation for one of skill in the art
to make the modification" because "Gremmert discloses that the polygon-
shaped icon image depicts and bounds significant hazardous weather
appearing in the short-term path of an aircraft." Id. at 9.
Appellants do not identify where Gremmert indicates that its intended
purpose is to display polygon-shaped images. See, generally, Gremmert.
4
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
Although Gemmert states that "up-linked weather products can be displayed
upon command depicted as bounded polygons on the cockpit display"
( Gremmert i-f 7), one skilled in the art would not understand displaying of
polygon-shaped images to be the intended purpose of Gremmert's method.
Rather, one skilled in the art would understand Gremmert's intended
purpose to be "delivery of weather product information to the cockpit of an
aircraft and in particular to a network architecture and on-board systems for
providing real time weather data to an aircraft." Id. i-f 2. Appellants do not
explain why the proposed modification would render Gremmert unsuitable
for delivering weather product information to the cockpit of an aircraft.
Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Appellants further contend that one skilled in the art "would have
consciously avoided modifying the shape of polygon-shaped image 310 of
Gremmert to correspond to a type of weather object." Appeal Br. 9. In
support of this contention, Appellants again argue that such a modification
"would have undermined a disclosed purpose of Gremmert, i.e., to display
polygon-shaped images 310 that depict and bound significant hazardous
weather areas." Id. at 10. However, as discussed supra, displaying polygon
shapes, even shapes that bound significant hazardous weather areas, is not
the intended purpose of Gremmert's method. Rather, displaying polygon
shapes is merely one way of implementing Gremmert' s method.
In addition, Appellants contend that "Gremmert does not disclose
suppression of display of weather reflectivity information while continuing
to display a hazardous weather icon. Rather, the polygon-shaped image 410
that the Examiner has characterized as the hazardous weather icon of FIG. 7
5
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
is itself composed of weather reflectivity information." Appeal Br. 1 O; see
also Reply Br. 3.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that:
Gremmert does disclose controlling [] the display to continue
displaying of the hazardous weather icon (Fig. 7, 410, symbol is
icon) and suppress display of at least the weather reflectivity
information (Figure 4, weather radar data, Fig. 5C WXR, Fig. 6,
boundary information of 310), terrain information (Fig. 5C,
TERR) and the boundary of the weather object (Fig. 6, 310,
polygon line is the boundary, and Fig. 7, only display 410, 410
is symbol/icon, there's no polygon line, so the boundary/weather
reflectivity information is suppressed).
Ans. 11.
The Specification identifies reflectivity data as
that portion of a radar's signal reflected back to the radar by
liquids (e.g., rain) and/or frozen droplets (e.g., hail, sleet, and/or
snow) residing in a weather object, such as a cloud or storm, or
residing in areas proximate to the cloud or storm generating the
liquids and/or frozen droplets.
Spec. i-f 16. Thus, we understand weather reflectivity information to be
information that pertains to the reflectivity data. Accordingly, Appellants
are correct that such information is depicted in the icons shown in
Gremmert's Figures 6 and 7. However, we understand the proposed
modification set forth in the rejection to replace Gremmert's icons with
Jones' icons which have the appearance of the weather hazard and do not
include weather reflective information. See Final Act. 5; Jones i-f 49. Thus,
the modified method does not include weather reflectivity information. We
further note that Jones not only discloses icons that correspond to the type of
weather hazard, Jones also describes icons that indicate the size of the
hazard. See Jones i-f 49.
6
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 3, 14--18, 22, and 30, which fall therewith. As our reasoning
differs from the Examiner's, we designate our affirmance of this rejection a
new ground of rejection.
Claim 29
Claim 29 further requires "in response to receiving the selection,
controlling, by the processor, the display to continue displaying the at least
one hazardous weather icon and suppress display of the terrain information."
Appeal Br. 24. The Examiner finds that Gremmert discloses:
in response to receiving the selection, controlling, by the
processor, the display to continue displaying of the hazardous
weather icon and suppress display of at least the weather
reflectivity information, terrain information and the boundary of
the weather object (Fig. 6, icon 310, polygon line is the
boundary, and Fig. 7, only display icon 410, there's no polygon
line, so the boundary is suppressed).
Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that
neither the portions of Gremmert cited by the Examiner, nor
elsewhere, discloses a method of, in response to receiving a
selection to display only at least one hazardous weather icon,
controlling, by a processor, the display to continue displaying the
at least one hazardous weather icon and suppress display of
terrain information, as recited by claim 29. Instead, Gremmert
discloses only mutually exclusive or integrated weather and
terrain displays.
Appeal Br. 11.
Gremmert states:
FIGS. SA-SE illustrate a typical cockpit installation 100 of
the present invention. The particular cockpit installation
depicted in FIGS. SA-[S]E is a retrofit installation wherein an
7
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
aircraft instrument panel 110 includes a ground proximity
warning system accessed by weather radar/terrain switch 112.
The pilot's ground proximity warning system switch panel 114
is modified to incorporate an on/off switch 116 whereby the pilot
accesses the significant weather data upon command. Instrument
panel 110 includes ground proximity warning system switch
panel 118.
Gremmert i-f 73 (emphasis omitted). Gremmert does not provide sufficient
detail of the switch panel to determine whether or not a selection can be
made to display the hazardous weather icon while suppressing the terrain
data. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 29 is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
We do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 29.
Claim 24
Contesting the rejection of independent claim 24, Appellants
essentially repeat the same arguments presented regarding claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 12-13. These arguments are unconvincing for the reasons
discussed supra.
We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 24 and designate
our affirmance as a new ground of rejection for the reasons discussed supra,
with respect to claim 1.
Claims 31-33, 35, and 36
Appellants argue claims 31-33, 35, and 36 together. See Appeal Br.
13-14. We select claim 31 as the representative claim, and claims 32, 33,
35, and 36 stand or fall with claim 31.
Appellants argue that "[ f]or at least the reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 1 (Group 1 ), Gremmert in view of Gueziec, and in further
view of Jones also fails to disclose or suggest the system of independent
8
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
claim 31." Id. at 13. As discussed supra, Appellants do not apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 1.
Appellants further enumerate the limitations of claim 31 (id. at 14) but
do not identify the alleged error in the Examiner's finding. Appellants'
argument amounts to a recitation of the claim elements and a "naked
assertion" that the elements are not found in the prior art. Such statements
do not constitute a separate argument for patentability of claim 31 pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). We sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claim 31, and claims 32, 33, 35, and 36, which fall therewith, and
designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Rejection II
Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1. Appellants argue that
"Szeto fails to overcome the deficiencies in Gremmert in view of Gueziec,
further in view of Jones discussed above with respect to claim 1." Appeal
Br. 15. As discussed supra, we find no deficiencies in the rejection of claim
1.
We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 2 and designate
our affirmance as a new ground of rejection for the reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 1.
Re} ection III
The Examiner finds that "Finley discloses displaying the hazardous
weather icon with one of a first fill pattern corresponding to a first hazard
level and a second fill pattern corresponding to a second hazard level that is
greater than the first hazard level (Fig. 5, 6A-6C)." Final Act. 9. Based on
this finding, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
9
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
modify Gremmert's method "by employing the well-known or conventional
features of fill patterns corresponding to hazard level, as disclosed by Finley,
to enable the pilot to rapidly and accurately identify the weather condition."
Id.
Appellants argue that
The Examiner failed to articulate why a person skilled in the art
would have looked to Finley to modify the method of Gremmert
in order "to enable the pilot to rapidly and accurately identify the
weather condition" when, for example, Gremmert already
discloses assigning a color to a graphical icon on an aircraft
display of weather-including turbulence-according to a
degree of hazard posed to an aircraft.
Appeal Br. 16-1 7 (emphasis and footnotes omitted).
As noted supra, the Examiner articulated reasons for the proposed
modification. Specifically, the Examiner reasons that it would be obvious to
modify Gremmert "to enable the pilot to rapidly and accurately identify the
weather condition." Final Act. 9. Appellants do not explain why the
Examiner's reasoning is flawed. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
To the extent that Appellants are arguing that the rejection is based
upon improper hindsight reasoning, Appellants do not identify any
knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from
Appellants' disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention, thereby obviating Appellants'
assertion of hindsight See ln re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971).
We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 5 and as claim 5
depends from claim 1, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of
rejection for the reasons discussed supra.
10
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
Re} ection IV
Claims 9 and 12 depend from claim 1, and claim 34 depends from
claim 31. Appellants argue that "Paramore fails to overcome the
deficiencies in Gremmert in view of Gueziec, further in view of Jones ...
with respect to claims 1 and 31." Appeal Br. 18.
As discussed supra, we find no deficiencies in the rejection of claims
1 and 31. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims
9, 12, and 34 and designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection for
the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 3 1.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
35 U.S.C. § 101 states, "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title."
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 14--18, 22, 24, and 29-36 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
The Supreme Court has set forth "a framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012).
According to the Supreme Court's framework, we must first determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts (i.e., laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Id. If so, we must secondly
"consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered
11
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the
nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. The Supreme
Court characterizes the second step of the analysis as "a search for an
'inventive concept' -- i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id.
Independent claims 1, 24, and 31 are directed to methods and a system
for presenting information (i.e., data) on a display. See Appeal. Br. 20, 23-
24, 25. Such claims are directed to an abstract idea as they do not assert any
particular inventive technology to display the data. See Electric Power
Group, LLCv. Alstom S.A., 2016 WL 4073318 at *3 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1,
2016). 1 Thus, having determined that claims 1, 24, and 31 are directed to
the abstract idea of displaying data, we must tum to the second step in the
Alice analysis.
This second step "requires us to determine whether the claims do
significantly more than simply describe that abstract method." Ultramercial,
Inc. and Ultramercial LLC v. Hulu, LLC and Wildtangent, Inc., 772 F.3d
709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). The Supreme
Court instructs that "[ w ]e must examine the limitations of the claims to
determine whether the claims contain an 'inventive concept' to 'transform'
the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter." Id. (citing
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298)). The
transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter
1 We note that the claims at issue, unlike the claims at issue in Electric
Power Group, are not even directed to the collection of data and analysis of
that data, but merely to the selection of data to display.
12
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
"requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the
words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). "Those
'additional features' must be more than 'well-understood, routine,
conventional activity."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298).
Here, the claims are clearly focused on the abstract idea of displaying
data. The advance they purport to make is in the displaying of selected data
not the provision of inventive technology for displaying data. "But merely
selecting information, by content or source, for ... display does nothing
significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose
implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of
abstract ideas." Electric Power Group, 2016 WL 4073318 at * 4.
Accordingly, we find nothing sufficient to transform the claimed
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter as claims 1, 24, and 31
merely display selected information. Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 14--18, 22, 29,
and 30 depend from claim 1 and do not add information which transforms
these claims into patent eligible subject matter. Claim 32-36 depend from
claim 31 and do not add information which transforms these claims into
patent eligible subject matter.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 14--18, 22, 24, and
30-36 are AFFIRMED and are designated as NEW GROUNDS OF
REJECTION.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 29 is REVERSED.
A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 14--18,
22, 24, and 29-36 is entered under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
13
Appeal2014-008844
Application 12/344,381
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section
41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the Appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is
binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
14