Ex Parte Dwyer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2008

10650008 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID B. DWYER
____________

Appeal 2007-2927
Application 10/650,008
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 17, 2008
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 1 to 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appellant invented a flight management system display that integrates
graphical flight planning with textural air traffic control clearance messages.
(Specification 1).
Appeal 2007-2927
Application 10/650,008

2
Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. An aircraft flight management display system for
displaying air traffic control clearance messages transmitted to
an aircraft, the system comprising:
a processor adapted to receive (i) data representative of a
current aircraft flight plan and (ii) one or more textual clearance
message signals representative of the air traffic control
clearance messages and operable, in response thereto, to supply
one or more flight plan display commands and one or more
clearance message display commands; and
a display coupled to receive the flight plan display
commands and the clearance message display commands and
operable, in response thereto, to substantially simultaneously
display (i) one or more images representative of the current
aircraft flight plan and (ii) the textual air traffic clearance
messages.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Deker.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Deker US 6,181,987 Jun. 30, 2001
Appellant contends that Deker does not disclose a processor adapted
to receive data representative of a current aircraft flight plan and one or more
textual clearance message signals representative of the air traffic control
clearance messages and operable, in response thereto, to supply one or more
flight plan display commands and one or more message display commands.
Appeal 2007-2927
Application 10/650,008

3
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Deker discloses a processor adapted to receive data
representative of a current aircraft flight plan and one or more textual
clearance message signals representative of the air traffic control clearance
messages and operable, in response thereto, to supply one or more flight
plan display commands and one or more message display command.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Deker discloses an aircraft flight management display system which
includes a processor. The Deker system provides a means for a pilot to alter
a flight path (col. 5, ll. 4 to 9). Deker also discloses that sources other than
the pilot can alter the flight path of an aircraft. When an outside source,
presumably air traffic control, seeks to change the flight plan of an aircraft, a
processor receives data representative of a new aircraft flight plan which has
been determined as a result of various events including airport congestion,
air traffic control, or weather conditions (col. 4, ll. 26 to 30). As depicted in
Figure 1, the processor receives this data via digital data radio transmission
device 15. The new flight plan is displayed on the graphic display portion
27 of a display screen to the pilot (Figure 2). The processor also receives
data representative of an air traffic control message signal (col. 5, ll. 9 to
13). The message relates to the clearance by air traffic control of the air
craft to use a flight plan and as such is an air traffic control clearance
message. This message is displayed in the message zone of a textual display
portion 28 of the display. When the processor receives the flight plan data
and the air traffic control message, the new flight plan is displayed along
Appeal 2007-2927
Application 10/650,008

4
with a FPLNS command. Activation of the FPLNS command prompts the
display of other flight plans (col. 7, ll. 38 to 43) and therefore is a flight plan
display command. Deker also discloses that an EXPLAIN command button
is displayed in response to the processor displaying a new flight plan and the
air traffic control message. By activation of the EXPLAIN command the
pilot can obtain further explanation about the air traffic control message that
accompanied the altered flight plan (col. 6, ll. 27 to 36). As the EXPLAIN
command relates to the reasons causing the air traffic control message it is a
clearance message display command.

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Deker does not
disclose a processor adapted to receive data representative of a current
aircraft flight plan and one or more textual clearance message signals
representative of air traffic control clearance messages. Deker discloses that
the processor receives messages from air traffic control regarding a change
flight plan because of events, such as, air traffic control, weather. In
addition, Deker discloses that a message is sent to the processor when an
event that causes a diversion occurs. This message necessarily concerns and
thus is representative of the lack of clearance for a previous aircraft flight
plan due to the occurrence of an event and is clearly representative of an air
traffic control clearance.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant that Deker does not disclose a
processor that displays a flight plan display command and a clearance
message display command in response to the receipt of data representative
Appeal 2007-2927
Application 10/650,008

5
of a flight plan and the air traffic control clearance message. Deker teaches
that a screen is displayed when the processor receives an air traffic control
message about a changed flight plan. This display of the screen is in
response to the receipt of a textual message about air traffic control and a
new flight plan. The display includes a FPLNS command and an EXPLAIN
command. The activation of the FPLNS command relates to modifying a
flight plan and as such is a flight plan display command and the EXPLAIN
command allows a pilot to obtain further information about the air traffic
control message and thus is a clearance message display command.
In view of the above, it is our view that Deker discloses each and
every element of claim 1. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2 to 12 because the Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of
these claims.1
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED

1 We note that the Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by
holding that the language “adapted to” and “operable” is intended use
language and thus is not entitled to patentable weight. However, as we have
found above, Deker discloses a processor that receives the data
representative of current aircraft flight plan and supplies one or more flight
plan display commands and a clearance message display command in
response to receipt of the data and message, thus we do not need to reach
these arguments.

Appeal 2007-2927
Application 10/650,008

6

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
P O BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN NJ 07962-2245

vsh