Ex Parte Davidson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201412706164 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte RONALD W. DAVIDSON and KEVIN A. WISE _____________ Appeal 2012-007179 Application 12/706,164 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007179 Application 12/706,164 2 STATEMENT OF CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 18–24 and 33–45. Claims 1–17 and 25–32 have been cancelled. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION Appellants’ invention involves a vehicle management and mission management computer architecture and packaging with a first line replaceable unit and a second line replaceable unit. See Abstract. Claim 18 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 18. A vehicle management and mission management computer architecture and packaging, comprising: a first line replaceable unit; a second line replaceable unit; a pair of vehicle management system computer channels in each line replaceable unit; and a pair of mission management system computer channels in each line replaceable unit. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 18–24 and 33–45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suzuki (US 7,130,728 B2, Oct. 31, 2006) and Kapolka (US 7,092,803 B2, Aug. 15, 2006). Ans. 4–7. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Suzuki and Kapolka teaches or suggests “a pair of vehicle management system Appeal 2012-007179 Application 12/706,164 3 computer channels in each line replaceable unit,” and “a pair of mission management system computer channels in each line replaceable unit,” as recited in exemplary claim 18? Br. 8–9. With respect to independent claims 33 and 40 and the dependent claim 19–24, 34–39, and 41–45, Appellants’ arguments in the Brief present us with the same issue identified above with respect to claim 18 (Br. 10–13). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner cited Suzuki for all the claim elements except for a pair of mission management system computer channels, and Kapolka for the element missing in Suzuki. Ans. 4– 5. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellants on pages 7 through 10 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 4–10. We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings including the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments. Appeal 2012-007179 Application 12/706,164 4 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18–24 and 33–45 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation