Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

12882258 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016)

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.
12/882,258 09/15/2010 Reetu Gupta H0026980 2601
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
12/13/2016 EXAMINER
GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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 @ honey well, com
docket@fogglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REETU GUPTA and THOMAS F. McGUFFIN1
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—20, all of the pending claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to methods and systems for Controller
Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) message processing using
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Honeywell International
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
dynamic on-demand screen generation for message response and
composition. See Spec. 14, Abstract.
Representative claims 1 and 18, reproduced from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, read as follows (disputed limitations in
italics)'.
1. A method for processing received CPDLC messages, the
method comprising:
receiving a CPDLC message having a plurality of
message elements;
extracting the plurality of message elements from the
CPDLC message;
generating a first display screen at a user display
interface for a first extracted message element of the plurality
of message elements, wherein the first display screen includes a
user response field that corresponds to a message-type attribute
associated with the first extracted message element;
generating a second display screen at the user display
interface for a second extracted message element of the
plurality of message elements, wherein the second display
screen includes a user response field that corresponds to a
message-type attribute associated with the second extracted
message element;
composing a response CPDLC message from a first user
response received via the first display screen and a second user
response received via the second display screen', and
sending the response CPDLC message.
18. A method for processing CPDLC messages, the method
comprising:
displaying a menu screen at a user display interface for
selecting a downlink message element;
displaying an HMI screen at the user display interface for
a selected message element and for entering any appropriate
data;
prompting user at the user display interface to verify
message element and data;
2
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
when the data is verified, storing the message element
into a table;
when the table includes less than five message elements,
querying user to add another message element;
composing a CPDLC message comprising the message
elements from the table; and
transmitting the CPDLC message.
REJECTIONS
Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Human Factors Minimum Operation Performance Standards
for Controller Pilot Data Link Communications Systems: Build 1 and Build
1 A, RTCA Inc., 2000” (“Controller Pilot”).
Claims 1, 5—9, 11—14, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Controller Pilot and Appelman et al. (US
6,539,421 Bl, issued Mar. 25, 2003) (“Appelman”).
Claims 2-4, 10, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Controller Pilot, Appelman, and Judd (US
7,580,377 B2, issued Aug. 25, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Answer, and the Reply Brief. We do not
agree with Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1—17. We agree with
and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions of law with
respect to these claims. We agree with Appellants’ arguments regarding
claims 18—20. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
below for emphasis.
3
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
Anticipation - Claims 18—20
Appellants argue that Controller Pilot does not disclose “when the
table includes less than five message elements, querying user to add another
message element,” as recited in independent claim 18. See App. Br. 6—7.
The Examiner finds that Controller Pilot discloses the disputed limitation
based on the disclosure that all uplinked CPDLC messages shall be
annunciated by an aural and a unique visual alert and disclosure that a
CPDLC message is composed of a message header and from one to five
message elements. See Final Act. 3 (citing Controller Pilot pp. 9—10, 24);
Ans. 13 (citing Controller Pilot pp. 9—10).
We agree with Appellants’ argument that “[bjeing asked whether to
add another message element to a CPDLC message is not anticipated by a
teaching that a flight crew is to be alerted when an uplink CPDLC message
becomes present.” App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 18 and dependent claim 20 as
anticipated by Controller Pilot. As to dependent claim 19, the Examiner
does not rely on the teachings of Appelman and Judd to remedy the
deficiencies of the Controller Pilot disclosure. See Final Act. 12—13.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as claims 18 and 20, we are constrained to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable over Controller
Pilot, Appelman, and Judd.
Obviousness - Claims 1—11
Appellants argue that the combination of Controller Pilot and
Appelman does not teach “generating a first display screen at a user display
interface for a first extracted message element of the plurality of message
elements,” and “generating a second display screen at the user display
4
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
interface for a second extracted message element of the plurality of message
elements,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 10-11. Appellants assert that
claim 1 is drawn to parsing a single CPDLC message into a dialog between a
user and another user into separate display screens. See id. at 12.
Appellants contend “the first display screen at a user display interface” and
the “second display screen at the user display interface” correspond to
different message elements of a single CPDLC message. See id. Appellants
contend that there is nothing in any of the cited references that would teach
or suggest taking a single message received from one user “mroel934” and
presenting that message to “JDOE1934” as multiple windows, each of the
multiple windows presenting a different message element from mroel 934’s
single message. See id. (citing Appelman Fig. 5); Reply Br. 3. Appellants
further argue that the first and second extracted message elements are
message elements from the same CPDLC message and do not come from
different CPDLC messages or from different users. See id. at 13; Reply Br.
3.
Appellants also argue that the combination of Controller Pilot and
Appelman does not teach or suggest “composing a response CPDLC
message from a first user response received via the first display screen and a
second user response received via the second display screen,” as recited in
claim 1. See App. Br. 13—14. Appellants contend that the response CPDLC
message created by the method of claim 1 results in a single response
CPDLC message that conveys multiple responses that correspond directly to
the message elements in the received CPDLC message. See id. at 14; Reply
Br. 3.
5
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because claim 1 does not
recite a single CPDLC message, the same CPDLC message, and a single
response CPDLC message. Claim 1 merely recites “a CPDLC message” and
“a response CPDLC message.”
[A]n indefinite article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the
meaning of “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the
transitional phrase “comprising. ’ . . . Unless [a] claim is specific
as to the number of elements, the article “a” receives a singular
interpretation only in rare circumstances when the [applicant]
evinces a clear intent to so limit the article. . . . Under this
conventional rule, the claim limitation “a,” without more,
requires at least one.
KCJCorp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(citations omitted). Therefore, “a CPDLC message” carries the meaning
“one or more CPDLC messages,” and “a response CPDLC message” carries
the meaning “one or more response CPDLC messages.”
For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1, and dependent claims 5—9 and 11 (not separately
argued) as unpatentable over Controller Pilot and Appelman. Appellants do
not substantively argue the rejection of dependent claims 2—\ and 10. See
App. Br. 19-20. Accordingly, for the same reason as claim 1, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2—\ and 10 as unpatentable
over Controller Pilot, Appelman, and Judd.
Obviousness - Claims 12—17
Appellants argue that the combination of Controller Pilot and
Appelman does not teach “wherein the first composition function defines a
first HMI [human machine interface] display screen element having a user
response field that corresponds to a message-type attribute associated with
6
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
the first extracted message element,” and “wherein the second composition
function defines a second HMI display screen element having a user
response filed that corresponds to a message-type attribute associated with
the second extracted message element,” as recited in independent claim 12.
See App. Br. 15—16. Appellants assert that claim 12 is drawn to parsing a
single CPDLC message received in a dialog between a user and another user
into separate display screens. Appellants contend “the first HMI display
screen element. . .” and the “second HMI display screen element. . .” at the
user display interface” correspond to different message elements of a single
CPDLC message. See id. at 17. Appellants argue that there is nothing in
any of the cited references that would teach or suggest taking a single
message received from one user “mroel934” and presenting that message to
“JDOE1934” as multiple windows, each of the multiple windows presenting
a different message element from mroel 934’s single message. See id.
(citing Appelman Fig. 5); Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue that the first
and second extracted message elements are message elements from the same
CPDLC message and do not come from different CPDLC messages or from
different users. See id. at 18; Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also argue that the combination of Controller Pilot and
Appelman does not teach or suggest “linking the first HMI display screen
element and the second HMI display screen element to generate a display
screen at a user display interface” and “compiling a response CPDLC
message from a first user response received via the first HMI display screen
element and a second user response received via the second HMI display
screen element,” as recited in claim 12. See App. Br. 18—19. Appellants
contend that the response CPDLC message created by the method of claim
7
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
12 results in a single response CPDLC message that conveys multiple
responses that correspond directly to the message elements in the received
CPDLC message. Id. at 18.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because claim 12 does not
recite a single CPDLC message, the same CPDLC message, and a single
response CPDLC message, but instead merely recites “a CPDLC message”
and “a response CPDLC message.” The recitation of “a CPDLC message”
carries the meaning “one or more CPDLC messages”, and “a response
CPDLC” message carries the meaning “one or more response CPDLC
messages.” See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d at 1356.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 12, and dependent claims 13, 14 and 17 (not
separately argued) as unpatentable over Controller Pilot and Appelman.
Appellants do not substantively argue the rejection of dependent claims 15
and 16. See App. Br. 19-20. Accordingly, for the same reason as claim 12,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15 and 16 as
unpatentable over Controller Pilot, Appelman, and Judd.
In regard to claims 1—17, Appellants argue for the first time in the
Reply Brief that “[ejven if the structure of a conventional instant message
was modified so that it w[as] composed of ‘one to five message elements’
similar to a CPDLC message, there is no suggestion or motivation provided
by either Controller Pilot or Appelman of generating separate display
screens of display screen elements for those message elements. Reply Br. 6.
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to an argument raised for the first
time in the Answer. Arguments raised for the first time in the Reply Brief
are deemed waived and will not be considered by the Board without a
8
Appeal 2015-004538
Application 12/882,258
showing of good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); see also Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he
reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been
made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but
were not.”). Appellants do not provide good cause for consideration of
Appellants’ belated arguments. See Reply Br. 1—7.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—17.
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 18—20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9