Ex Parte Cole et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2013

10408175 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2013)

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.
10/408,175 04/04/2003 James Cole 40125/00202 4413
7590 03/14/2013
Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP
Suite 702
150 Broadway
New York, NY 10038
EXAMINER
FISHER, PAUL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte JAMES COLE, MATTHEW MARCELLA, 7
RON DUNSKY, and PETER GERLETT 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2011-004267 11
Application 10/408,175 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
16
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 17
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
19
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 20
21
22
DECISION ON APPEAL23
Appeal 2011-004267
Application 10/408,175

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
James Cole, Matthew Marcella, Ron Dunsky, and Peter Gerlett 2
(Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of 3
claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-18, 20, 21, and 25-29, the only claims pending in the 4
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 5
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6
The Appellants invented a way of sharing of information among 7
parties that would allow the airport to return to normal operations as quickly 8
as possible after the occurrence of an irregular condition (Spec., para. 9
[0002]). 10
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 11
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 12
paragraphing added]. 13
1. A system, comprising: 14
[1] a first computing device 15
configured to receive data 16
from a plurality of input feeds, 17
the data corresponding to operating parameters 18
of an airport facility, 19
the first computing device further configured to organize 20
the data 21
into a plurality of displayable files 22
which are viewable by users of the system, 23
the first computing device further configured to detect an 24
irregular operating condition 25
of the airport facility based on the data 26
corresponding to the operating parameters, 27
the first computing device further configured to insert, 28

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 11, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December
13, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 13, 2010).
Appeal 2011-004267
Application 10/408,175

3

in each displayable file 1
that includes the operating parameter 2
corresponding to the irregular 3
operating condition, 4
a notification 5
of the irregular operating condition; 6
[2] a first additional computing device 7
connected via a communication network 8
to the first computing device, 9
the first additional computing device configured to 10
receive at least one of the displayable files 11
organized by the first computing 12
and 13
display the at least one of the displayable files to a 14
user, 15
the displayable file including 16
an indication of 17
a plurality of departure slots 18
or 19
a plurality of arrival slots 20
for the airport facility, 21
wherein the first additional computing device is further 22
configured to receive input 23
from the user 24
corresponding to a request 25
for one of the departure slots or arrival slots, 26
the request being forwarded to the first computing 27
device 28
which is configured to update the 29
displayable file 30
to indicate the request; 31
and 32
[3] a second additional computing device 33
connected via the communication network to the 34
first computing device, 35
the second additional computing device configured to 36
receive 37
the updated displayable file 38
Appeal 2011-004267
Application 10/408,175

4

including the request for the one of the 1
departure slots or arrival slots, 2
wherein the second additional computing device is 3
further configured to receive input 4
from a second user 5
corresponding to an approval or a denial of the 6
request, 7
wherein the approval or denial 8
is forwarded to the first computing device 9
which is configured to further update the 10
displayable file 11
to indicate the approval or denial of 12
the request. 13
14
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 15
Ascent, Ascent Technology's Products and Services, 16
(http://web.archive.org/web/19980109214609/ascent.com/producthome.17
htm) (1998) (last accessed Oct. 10, 2007) (Hereinafter “Ascent”). 18
19
Ascent Technology, Inc., Ascent SmartAirport Operation Center, 20
SmartAirport Solutions: The Smart Way to Manage Airport Resources? 21
From Touchdown to Takeoff, 22
(http://web.archive.org/web/20001206100300/www.smartairport.com/s23
martairport_solutions_2.html) (2000) (last accessed Oct. 10, 2007) 24
(Hereinafter “SmartAirport”). 25
26
Rebecca Quick, On-Line Chat Comes to the Office --- Instant Messages 27
Link Busy Colleagues, Wall Street Journal (Europe), Brussels, 1-3 (Jun. 28
2, 1998). (Hereinafter “Quick”). 29
30
Claims 16-17 and 20-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as 31
anticipated by Ascent. 32
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 33
unpatentable over Ascent. 34
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ascent and SmartAirport. 36
Appeal 2011-004267
Application 10/408,175

5

Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 1
over Ascent and Quick. 2
ISSUES 3
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the combination 4
of Ascent and SmartAirport show it was predictable to include the 5
management of takeoff and landing slot changes in the ARIS suite of airport 6
management software. 7
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 8
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 9
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 10
Facts Related to the Prior Art 11
Ascent 12
01. Ascent is directed to describing the ARIS family of software 13
products for the air transportation industry providing long-term 14
planning and real-time decision support for critical activities, such 15
as the allocation of gates, parking positions, personnel, and ramp 16
equipment; aircraft routing; aircraft maintenance; and aircraft 17
cleaning. Because ARIS is built on a central database that stores 18
detailed, up-to-the-minute information about utilization of airport 19
and airline resources, ARIS can drive related applications, such as 20
billing systems, airport web sites, and intranets for distribution of 21
information. Ascent 1. 22
SmartAirport 23
02. SmartAirport is directed to Ascent’s SmartAirport software, one 24
of Ascent’s ARIS suite of airport management software packages, 25
that an integral part of daily operations at some of the busiest 26
Appeal 2011-004267
Application 10/408,175

6

airports and airlines around the world. They automate the long-1
range schedule planning and daily management of key physical 2
and human resources essential to the efficient handling of every 3
flight, from touchdown to takeoff. SmartAirport 1. 4
03. Beginning with the scheduling of landing/takeoff slots, and 5
following through with the coordinated allocation of gates, 6
baggage belts, check-in counters, and ground personnel, 7
SmartAirport solutions ensure that all of these resources are 8
deployed and used to their greatest advantage. SmartAirport 1. 9
ANALYSIS 10
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, and 26-29 rejected under 11
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ascent and SmartAirport. 12
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 13
over Ascent and Quick. 14
Claims 1 and 16 are the only claims argued substantively. Both 15
claims are substantively highly similar. The main contention comes from 16
the argument against the novelty rejection against claim 16, that Ascent 17
never even discusses departure or arrival slots. Appeal Br. 7. We must 18
agree that Ascent fails to discuss departure or arrival slots per se. However, 19
we are currently analyzing the obviousness rejection rather than the 20
anticipation rejection. We find that SmartAirport, a component of the ARIS 21
software suite described in Ascent, explicitly manages takeoff and landing 22
slots. While, being a component of the software described by the Ascent 23
reference logically makes the characteristics of the software in SmartAirport 24
inherent in the software described by Ascent, the explicit connection in 25
SmartAirport shows it was predictable to find SmartAirport software in the 26
Appeal 2011-004267
Application 10/408,175

7

software described by Ascent. Thus, we find the argument distinguishing 1
landing and takeoff slots from Ascent’s discussion of gate management to be 2
unpersuasive. As to the arguments regarding display of approval or denial 3
of requests for slots, we agree with Examiner’s fact finding that such 4
approval or denial must occur to avoid catastrophic results in limited 5
resource airports. As the ARIS software is described as managing all the 6
operations, it is at least predictable that such approval or denial would be 7
displayed as a means for communicating the outcome, as again, absent such 8
communication, catastrophic results would obtain. 9
Appellants, add in the Reply Brief at 10 the argument that the references 10
do not explicitly show updating files with the information. To this we find 11
that, as it is airport management software that is described in the references, 12
it was at least predictable for regulatory reasons, not to say ordinary 13
management practice, to store all such data critical to operations in the 14
management system. ARIS is specifically described as incorporating a 15
database. The cost/benefit of storing critical data where a repository already 16
exists is so weighted toward saving such data as to be hardly worth 17
discussing. 18
As the rejection of claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, and 26-29 under 19
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ascent and SmartAirport covers all 20
claims except claim 25, which is not separately argued, we need not reach 21
the rejections of anticipation and obviousness over Ascent alone. 22
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 23
The rejection of claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, and 26-29 under 35 24
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ascent and SmartAirport is proper. 25
Appeal 2011-004267
Application 10/408,175

8

The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 1
over Ascent and Quick is proper. 2
The rejection of claims 16-17 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as 3
anticipated by Ascent is not reached. 4
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 5
as unpatentable over Ascent is not reached. 6
DECISION 7
The rejection of claims 1-8, 11-13, 16-18, 20, 21, and 25-29 is 8
affirmed. 9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 10
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 11
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 12
13
AFFIRMED 14
15
16
17
Klh 18