11192576 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2011)

Ex Parte Dunsky

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 21, 2011

11192576 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2011)

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. 11/192,576 07/29/2005 Ron Dunsky 40125/01502 9606 30636 7590 09/22/2011 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP 150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702 NEW YORK, NY 10038 EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2011 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 ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte RON DUNSKY ____________ Appeal 2010-006515 Application 11/192,576 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006515 Application 11/192,576 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-18 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system for locating aircraft passengers (Spec. [0003]). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system, comprising: a data feed arrangement to receive aircraft data points from a first data source and passenger information from a second data source; a data processing arrangement to store each aircraft data point in a flight record and generate a flight track for the aircraft using data stored in the flight record, the data processing arrangement also receiving the passenger information and, prior to receiving a request for any specific flight track or passenger information, matching the passenger information with a corresponding flight record; and [1] a data distribution arrangement to organize the flight track and passenger information into a displayable file, wherein the displayable file includes a mechanism to search for specific passenger information. Appeal 2010-006515 Application 11/192,576 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Nishimura US 6,003,009 Dec. 14, 1999 Kumhyr US 2003/0233244 A1 Dec. 18, 2003 Cole US 2004/0104824 A1 Jun. 3, 2004 The following rejections are before us for review1: 1. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cole and Nishimura. 2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cole, Nishimura, and Kumhyr. THE ISSUES With regards to claim 1 and its dependent claims, the issue turns on whether Cole and Nishimura disclose claim limitation [1]. The remaining claims turn on a similar issue. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence:2 1 The rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn in the Examiners Answer (Ans. 2-3). 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2010-006515 Application 11/192,576 4 FF1. Cole has disclosed a flight track display system (Title) used to generate a flight track for the target aircraft (Abstract). FF2. Cole in Fig. 3 shows that by clicking on a graphical airplane on a map, criteria such as Flight ID, Aircraft type, Altitude, Origin, Destination, and Track ID can be displayed (Box 306). FF3. Cole at [0004] discloses that a flight track of the target aircraft and additional information is placed in the displayable file and distributed to users of the system. FF4. Cole at [0037] discloses that flight information box 306 may display additional information. FF5. Cole at Fig. 3, [0004], and [0037] discloses a display mechanism for flight information but not a mechanism to search for specific passenger information. FF6. Nishimura at Col. 7:15-24 discloses extracting passenger information relating to a flight and at Col. 7:50-65 matching flight information and specific passenger information. Nishimura at Col. 7:15-24 and Col. 7:50-65 does not disclose a mechanism to search for specific passenger information. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because Cole and Nishimura do not disclose claim limitation [1] (App. Br. 5). Specifically, the Appellant argues that the prior art does not show that “the displayable file includes a mechanism to search for specific passenger information” (App. Br. 6). The Appellant argues that that the limitation requires that “an actual mechanism… performs the search” and that Cole does not disclose this (Reply Br. 2-3). Appeal 2010-006515 Application 11/192,576 5 In contrast, the Examiner has determined that claim limitation [1] is shown by Cole at [0004], [0037], Fig. 3, and by Nishimura at Col. 7:15-24 and Col. 7:50-65 (Ans. 4, 7-8). We agree with the Appellant. Claim limitation [1] requires: [1] a data distribution arrangement to organize the flight track and passenger information into a displayable file, wherein the displayable file includes a mechanism to search for specific passenger information. (Claim 1, emphasis added). Thus the cited claim limitation [1] requires in part an arrangement to organize “flight track and passenger information into a displayable file, wherein the displayable file includes a mechanism to search for specific passenger information” in some manner. Support for this claim limitation is given in part in the Specification at paragraph [0028]. Cole at Fig. 3, [0004], and [0037] discloses a display mechanism for flight information but not a mechanism to search for specific passenger information as the claim requires (FF5). Nishimura at Col. 7:15-24 and Col. 7:50-65 discloses extracting and matching passenger information but fails to disclose the claimed mechanism to search for specific passenger information as well (FF6). Claim limitation [1] requires a “mechanism to search for specific passenger information” which is different than “a display of specific passenger information” as shown in the prior art reference of Cole. For this reason, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is reversed. Claim 11 contains a similar limitation and the rejection of this claim and its dependent claims is reversed for these same reasons. Appeal 2010-006515 Application 11/192,576 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cole and Nishimura; and claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cole, Nishimura, and Kumhyr. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-18 is reversed. REVERSED mls