Ex Parte Judd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

13268284 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2017)

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.
13/268,284 10/07/2011 Thomas D. Judd H0030846-5435 9839
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
EVANS, GARRETT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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 THOMAS D. JUDD and JOHN VISE
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,2841
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,284
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “methods and systems for
managing non-integrated CPDLC [Controller Pilot Data Link
Communication] systems on a single aircraft.” Spec. 14. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A system for implementing a controller pilot data link
communication (CPDLC) solution, the system comprising:
a first computing system executing a first CPDLC
application, the first CPDLC application having established a
first CPDLC session with a first air traffic controller;
a second computing system executing a second CPDLC
application separately from the first CPDLC application, the
second CPDLC application having established a second CPDLC
session with a second air traffic controller, the second CPDLC
session being concurrent with the first CPDLC session;
at least one Human Machine Interface coupled to the first
computing system and the second computing system, the Human
Machine Interface providing access to display screens generated
by both the first CPDLC application and the second CPDLC
application; and
a data authority function that determines a data authority
application from one of the first CPDLC application and the
second CPDLC application, the data authority function indicates
to the first CPDLC application and the second CPDLC
application which of the established first CPDLC session and the
established second CPDLC session is a current data authority
session;
wherein, when the first computing system and the second
computing system have established the concurrent first and
second CPDLC sessions, the data authority function prevents the
first CPDLC application from establishing a concurrent current
2
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,284
data authority session when the second CPDLC application is the
data authority application;
wherein, when the first computing system and the second
computing system have established concurrent first and second
CPDLC sessions, the data authority function prevents the second
CPDLC application from establishing the concurrent current data
authority session when the first CPDLC application is the data
authority application.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Corbefm US 2008/0098307 Al Apr. 24, 2008
Forido US 2008/0163093 Al July 3, 2008
Sandell et al. US 7,495,602 B2 Feb. 24, 2009
(hereinafter “Sandell I”)
Sandell et al. US 2010/0023247 Al Jan. 28, 2010
(hereinafter “Sandell II”)
Rejections
Claims 1—6, 8—15, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Sandell I, Corbefm, and
Sandell II. Final Act. 4—14.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sandell I, Corbefm, Sandell II, and
Lorido. Final Act. 14—15
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sandell I,
Corbefm, and Sandell II teaches or suggests “a second computing system
3
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,284
executing a second CPDLC application separately from the first CPDLC
application,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sandell I,
Corbefin, and Sandell II teaches or suggests
a data authority function that determines a data authority
application from one of the first CPDLC application and the
second CPDLC application, the data authority function indicates
to the first CPDLC application and the second CPDLC
application which of the established first CPDLC session and the
established second CPDLC session is a current data authority
session,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants contend the combination of Sandell I, Corbefin, and
Sandell II fails to teach or suggest “a second computing system executing a
second CPDLC application separately from the first CPDLC application,” as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9—13; Reply Br. 1—3.
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Sandell I
teaches a first computer system executing a PANS (future Air Navigation
System) application 106, 108 and a second computing system executing an
ATN (Aeronautical Telecommunications Network) application 104 for
establishing communication with an air traffic control center. Pinal Act. 4—
5; see also Sandell I, Pig. 1; 2:4—8. The Examiner finds figures 1 and 3 of
Sandell I illustrate the PANS components 106, 108 as executing separately
from the ATN component 104. Pinal Act. 4. The Examiner finds Sandell I,
therefore, teaches or suggests a second computing system executing a
4
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,284
second CPDLC application (e.g., FANS applications 106, 108) separately
from the first CPDLC application (e.g., ATN application 104). Id.
Appellants contend Sandell I fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation because Sandell I, instead, teaches “a single ATC operator
interface having three application components that are part of a single
application.” App. Br. 10. Appellants argue Sandell I “describes the
separate parts as ‘application components’ denoting that they are merely
components of a single application” and “they are part of the same
application because there is a single ATN application component and two
separate FANS application components, where the FANS application
components function together to provide functionality related to FANS.”
App. Br. 10. According to Appellants “one having skill in the art would
understand that the three application components of Sandell [I] are
components of a single application, where that single application controls
the operation of CPDLC communication through an ATC operator interface.
App. Br. 11. Appellants agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3) that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “application” includes “a piece of computing]
software that is designed to do a particular job” but contend the Examiner
misapplies the term “application” with respect to the teachings of Sandell I
(Reply Br. 1). Appellants argue “the Examiner is dividing a piece of
software code into parts in order to suit the desired end of having Sandell [I]
specification read on the present claims.” Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellants
assert, “the particular job that a piece of computer software is designed to
perform can only be defined in relation to the intention of the original
producer of the software.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue “the application in
Sandell [I] was designed to provide integrated ATN and FANS
5
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,284
functionality” and “Sandell [I] describes the ATN and FANS specific code
as application components and not applications.” Id.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. As found by the
Examiner (Final Act. 4), Figure 1 of Sandell I depicts a communication
system having an interface connected to “ATN APPLICATIONS” 104,
“FANS APPLICATIONS” 106, and “FANS APPLICATIONS” 108.
Sandell I describes Figure 1 as “a schematic representation of the
architectural concepts of a communication system in accordance with an
embodiment of the invention.” Sandell I 2:24—26. Sandell I teaches “[t]he
present invention is directed to systems and methods for communication
using a plurality of incompatible air traffic control technologies through a
single operator interface.” Sandell I 1:46-48. Because Sandell I discloses
the ATC technologies as “incompatible,” Sandell I teaches, or at least
suggests, that the ATN applications 104 and the FANS Applications 106 are
separate applications executing on separate computing systems accessed
through a single operator interface. Even, assuming arguendo, Sandell I
teaches or suggest the ATN and FANS applications are integral, the
Supreme Court guides that “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and
yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the
combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). Here,
the applications would continue to perform in the same way and as expected.
Further, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner’s proffered
combination of references would have been “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
6
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,284
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.2
Issue 2
Appellants contend the combination of Sandell I, Corbefm, and
Sandell II fail to teach or suggest “a data authority function that determines a
data authority application from one of the first CPDLC application and the
second CPDLC application, the data authority function indicates to the first
CPDLC application and the second CPDLC application which of the
established first CPDLC session and the established second CPDLC session
is a current data authority session,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14—17;
Reply Br. 4—5. According to Appellants
[C]laim 1 calls for the prevention of concurrent data authority
sessions when the first and second CPDLC applications have
established first and second concurrent CPDLC sessions.
Further, claim 1 calls for the designation of one CPDLC session
as current data authority function from different established
CPDLC sessions by a data authority function.
App. Br. 15. Appellants argue Sandell II “fails to describe anything about a
data authority function that designates a CPDLC session as a data authority
session from two concurrent and established CPDLC sessions. Id.
Appellants further argue Sandell II teaches “[a]t the point where two
concurrent CPDLC sessions are established, one is already designated as a
2 The Examiner additionally finds the disputed limitation is inherent in the
system of Sandell I and also taught by the combined teachings of Sandell I
and Corbefm. Final Act. 6—7. Because we are not persuaded that Sandell I
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation, we do not reach Appellants’
contentions (App. Br. 10-14) regarding these additional findings of the
Examiner.
7
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,284
data authority session. Thus, there is no need for a data authority function to
designate one of the established CPDLC session as a current data authority
session.” App. Br. 17. Appellants also argue Sandell II fails to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation because Sandell II “fails to describe the
selection of a data authority from two already established concurrent
CPDLC sessions. Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. Contrary to
Appellants’ contentions, claim 1 does not require the data authority function
to designate (App. Br. 17) or select (Reply Br. 4) a data authority function
from one of the first CPDLC application and the second CPDLC application.
Instead, claim 1 merely requires the data authority function to determine a
data authority application from one of the first CPDLC application and the
second CPDLC application. As found by the Examiner (Ans. 4—5), Sandell
II teaches establishing concurrent CPDLC sessions. Sandell II118. Sandell
II teaches “[a]t this point, the FANS application has an active CPDLC
connection, and the ATN application has an inactive (next center)
connection.” Id. Because Sandell II teaches the FANS application is an
active CPDFC connection and the ATN connection is an inactive (next
center) CPDFC connection, Sandell II teaches or suggests determining that
the FANS application is the current data authority application and, therefore,
its CPDFC connection is an active connection and determining that the ATN
application is not the current data authority application and, therefore, its
CPDFC connection is an inactive connection.
CONCFUSION
8
Appeal 2016-003314
Application 13/268,284
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 or claims 2—20, which are not separately argued
with particularity. See App. Br. 17—18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
9