Ex Parte Judy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13765951 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
13/765,951 02/13/2013 Vicki Judy H0036668-5435 4310
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
09/29/2017 EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, KELLY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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 VICKI JUDY and THOMAS D. JUDD
Appeal 2016-006746
Application 13/765,9511
Technology Center 3600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1,2, 4—8, 10, 12—16, and 18—20. The Examiner has objected to
claims 3,9, 11, and 17 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
indicates these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Final Act. 10. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-006746
Application 13/765,951
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to
managing non-integrated CPDLC (Controller Pilot Data Link
Communication) systems on a single aircraft. Spec. 14. According to the
Specification, there are two systems for implementing CPDLC for air traffic
control of commercial aircraft. Spec. 11. These systems are the Future Air
Navigation System (FANS or FANS CPDLC) and the Aeronautical
Telecommunications Network (ATN or ATN CPDLC). Spec. 11.
Additionally, the Specification informs us that use of one system or the other
is largely based on geographical considerations. Spec. 11. Thus, an aircraft
may travel from a region that uses one CPDLC system (e.g., FANS) to
another region that uses the other CPDLC system (e.g., ATN). The
Specification also indicates “by regulation, an aircraft is not permitted to
have two CDA [(current data authority)] ATC [(air traffic control)]
connections concurrently, as that means two different air traffic controllers
are in charge [of] a single aircraft.” Spec. 12.
In a disclosed embodiment, a system for implementing a non-
integrated FANS/ATN CPDLC solution comprises a first one or more
execution partition for executing a FAMS CPDLC application and a second
one or more execution partition for executing an ATN CPDLC application.
Spec. Ill, Fig. 1. Additionally, the system includes one or more Human
Machine Interfaces, which be in communication with both the first execution
partition and the second execution partition. Spec. 115. Further, the system
includes a datalink router, which interfaces between the FANS CPDLC
application and the ATN CPDLC application and one or more radio
2
Appeal 2016-006746
Application 13/765,951
transceivers, and an air traffic control communication network gatekeeper
module. Spec. H 18—19. According to the Specification, the gatekeeper
module ensures that the FANS CPDLC application and the ATN CPDLC
application do not have active CDA ATC connections concurrently. Spec.
119.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below (original emphasis omitted) with the disputed limitations
emphasized in italics:
1. A system for implementing a non-integrated controller
pilot data link communications (CPDLC) solution, the system
comprising:
a first one or more execution partitions executing one or
more first applications including a first CPDLC application;
a second one or more execution partitions executing one
or more second applications including a second CPDLC
application;
a datalink router for interfacing between the first and
second CPDLC applications and one or more radio transceivers;
and
a gatekeeper module that monitors messages in the
datalink router corresponding to the first CPDLC application and
inhibits communication between the first CPDLC application
and any air traffic control (ATC) ground station when the second
CPDLC application has an active current data authority (CDA)
ATC connection.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10, 12—16, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sandell et al. (US 2007/0126621
Al; June 7, 2007) (“Sandell”). Final Act. 2—7.
3
Appeal 2016-006746
Application 13/765,951
2. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sandell and Judd et al. (US 2011/0133980 Al;
June 9, 2011) (“Judd”). Final Act. 8-10.
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10, 12—16, and 18
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, Sandell discloses a
first (one or more) execution partition executing a first CPDLC application
and a second (one or more) execution partition executing a second CPDLC
application. Final Act. 2 (referring to Sandell, Fig. 2); see also Final
Act. 10-11 (citing Sandell H 18—19).
Appellants assert Sandell, particularly the sections of Sandell relied on
by the Examiner, “are silent regarding the manner in which the respective
CPDLC applications are executed.” App. Br. 9. Additionally, Appellants
argue Sandell fails to disclose the respective CPDLC applications are
executed in distinct execution partitions. App. Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner states “a first one or more execution
partitions and a second one or more execution partitions may be software
applications, which have access to each other’s memory space (e.g.,
executed in the same operating system/execution environment) being
executed on the same hardware resources, as suggested by Sandell.'” Ans. 2
(emphasis altered). Accordingly, the Examiner finds Appellants’ argument
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 12, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed June 27, 2016
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 27, 2016 (“Ans.”); and
the Final Office Action, mailed May 29, 2015 (“Final Act.”), from which
this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2016-006746
Application 13/765,951
that Sandell does not disclose the claimed first and second execution
partitions is not persuasive because, contrary to Appellants’ construction, the
Examiner does not find the claimed first and second execution partitions are
required to be distinct partitions. Ans. 4.
Figure 2 of Sandell is illustrative and is reproduced below.
200
202 206 204
rransferrincj
ATSU
Airpsane
Avionics
208
210
R&oaivSrsg
ATSU '
210
22:4
230
' "■Cs&'ijii .......
.... .
w -v ■'&
214
220
228
Figure 2 of Sandell illustrates various messaging when transferring control
from a FANS-based control center to an ATN-based control center. Sandell
117. As shown, the Transferring ATSU (air traffic services unit), FANS
center (202), sends an uplink message to the aircraft (208) that the next data
authority is an ATN center (204). Sandell 118. FANS center (202) also
5
Appeal 2016-006746
Application 13/765,951
sends a Contact Advisory message (210) with an identifier of the ATN
center. Sandell 118. The aircraft responds back to the FANS center (212)
and sends a Logon Request (214) to the Receiving ATSU, ATN center
(204). Sandell H 18—19. After receiving the Logon Response (216) from
the ATN center, the aircraft sends a Complete message (218) to the FANS
center. Sandell 119. The ATN center sends a CPDLC Start Request (220)
to the aircraft, which responds with a Confirm message (222). Sandell 119.
In the case where the transfer process continues, the FANS center will send
a message to terminate the FANS session (224) (i.e., so that only one
CPDLC application is active). Sandell 120.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Here, we agree with Appellants that Sandell does not disclose either
expressly or inherently, a first execution partition including a first CPDLC
application and a second execution partition including a second CPDLC
application. Even under the Examiner’s understanding that the claimed
execution partitions may share access to memory and be executed in the
same execution environment, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
persuasive evidence or technical reasoning to support a finding that
Sandell’s system comprises first and second execution partitions. Cf. Spec.
112 (describing the first execution partition as distinct from the second
execution partition with no common partition or access to each other’s
memory space). Compare Spec. 114 (distinguishing non-integrated systems
as claimed from integrated systems, which “are implemented in one or more
6
Appeal 2016-006746
Application 13/765,951
common partitions’), with Final Act. 11 (describing Sandell’s system as an
“integrated CPDLC system”).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 13, which recites similar limitations. Additionally, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4—8, 10, 12, 14—16, and 18,
which depend therefrom.
Claims 19 and 20
Similar to claim 1, independent claim 19 also recites “a first one or
more execution partitions” and “a second one or more execution partitions.”
In rejecting claim 19, the Examiner relies the same findings from Sandell as
those relied upon in rejecting claim 1 to teach the claimed first and second
execution partitions. Final Act. 8—9. Thus, for similar reasons to those
discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 19. Further, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20,
which depends therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10,
12-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a).
REVERSED
7