Ex Parte Lykken et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

11161870 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SCOTT D. LYKKEN, WENDELL A. FROST, and
KEVIN S. POGGE
____________________

Appeal 2010-009937
Application 11/161,870
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009937
Application 11/161,870

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
16 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter.
1. A data management system
comprising:
a plurality of flight data sources configured
to generate flight data; and
a flight data recorder coupled to said
plurality of flight data sources, said flight data
recorder comprising:
a reconfigurable algorithmic network
configured to define one or more predetermined
operations based on said flight data, said
reconfigurable algorithmic network comprising:
1) a plurality of functional elements, each of
said functional elements defining one or more of
said predetermined operations; and
2) a database comprising:
a) a plurality of codes defining one or
more of said functional elements,
b) a plurality of computer routines for
executing said functional elements, and
c) connection means for directing
logic flow and data flow between said functional
elements; and
interpreter means for interpreting said flight
data in accordance with said reconfigurable
algorithmic network, said interpreter means
including means for defining operational
relationships between said functional elements,
Appeal 2010-009937
Application 11/161,870

3
wherein said interpreter means is configured to
receive said functional element codes from said
data base and select one of said computer routines.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Honcik US 5,761,625 Jun. 2, 1998

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections.
I Claims 1-16 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Honcik, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Honcik.1 Final Rej. 2-5; Ans. 3, 4; App. Br. 8.
II Claims 1-16 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Honcik and Appellants’ admitted prior art. Final Rej. 5; Ans.
3, 12; App. Br. 8.
III Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite. Ans. 13.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue that Honcik does not have a “flight data recorder
comprising: a reconfigurable algorithmic network,” as recited in

1 While the Appeal Brief does not mention obviousness as an alternative
basis for rejection I (App. Br. 8), the rejection as stated in the Final
Rejection includes obviousness as an alternative basis for the rejection (Final
Rej. 2).
Appeal 2010-009937
Application 11/161,870

4
independent claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellants also point out that independent
claim 21 contains essentially the same limitation. Id. at 10-11. Specifically,
Appellants note that Honcik discloses a plurality of RANs (reconfigurable
algorithmic networks) separate from a flight data recorder. Id. at 10.
Appellants also argue that Honcik fails to meet the claim 14 limitation “a
reconfigurable algorithmic network, resident on said flight data recorder” for
similar reasons. Id. The Examiner responds that
[I]n the context of these black box type schematic
diagrams of data systems it may simply be a matter of
where you draw the dotted lines around the components
and/or the sequence of the processing of the data upon
which the RAN and interpreter operate upon to generate
a report for the flight crew with respect to aircraft
operating conditions on a cockpit display, as well as with
a flight data recorder (28) as suggested numerous times
within the Honcik et al. prior art.
Ans. 17-18. Neither this assertion nor the balance of the Examiner’s
discussion in Rejection I provides sound support for a finding that Honcik
teaches a RAN in a flight recorder, and thus Honcik does not anticipate any
of independent claims 1, 14 and 21. Additionally, while the header for
Rejection I mentions obviousness as an alternate basis for the rejection, the
discussion in Rejection I does not appear to explain why claims 1, 14 and 21
would have been obvious over Honcik. Accordingly, we do not sustain
Rejection I.

Rejection II
With respect to Rejection II, Appellants argue claims 1-16 and 21 as a
group. We select claim 1 as representative and treat claims 2-16 and 21 as
Appeal 2010-009937
Application 11/161,870

5
standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that Honcik’s aircraft data management system
includes RANs, as well as a flight data recorder communicatively linked to
the rest of the data management system. Ans. 12. The Examiner also finds
that Honcik discloses using an RAN to analyze data from the flight data
recorder to produce a report. Id. at 19. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to incorporate an RAN in Honcik’s flight data
recorder, finding that this modified arrangement would provide the same
functionality as Honcik’s disclosed arrangement. Id. at 12.
Appellants traverse the rejection by alleging various countervailing
considerations. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would not have been obvious because of safety and technological issues
connected to requirements of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration).
App. Br. 13. Appellants also emphasize that Honcik and the admitted prior
art in the Specification do not explicitly disclose incorporating an RAN into
a flight data recorder. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. of Nov. 14, 2008, 2.
Appellants argue that this demonstrates the Examiner’s proposed
modification did not lie within the level of ordinary skill in the art. App. Br.
12. Appellants also argue that the claimed invention of including an RAN in
a flight data recorder beneficially solves cost/space problems for certain
applications. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. of Nov. 14, 2008, 2.
The Examiner provides rational underpinning for the conclusion of
obvious by finding that simply rearranging Honcik’s system to incorporate
one of Honcik’s RANs into the flight data recorder would produce the
predictable result of providing the same functionality as the arrangement
Appeal 2010-009937
Application 11/161,870

6
disclosed by Honcik. See Ans. 12, 19. Absent contradictory explanation or
evidence that such a modification would change the functionality of
Honcik’s system, Appellants do not apprise us of error in this conclusion by
presenting vague attorney argument regarding safety and technological
issues connected to requirements of the FAA. Appellants also fail to apprise
us of error by merely noting that the prior art of record does not explicitly
disclose incorporating an RAN in a flight data recorder, as “the mere
existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not
establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219,
230 (1976). Additionally, Appellants’ attorney argument related to cost and
space savings does not convince us that these advantages would have been
unobvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments do not apprise us of error in Rejection II.

Rejection III
The Examiner rejects claim 2 as indefinite based on a determination
that the discussion on page 6, lines 3-7 of the Specification provides
inadequate disclosure of structure corresponding to the claimed “means for
developing said reconfigurable algorithmic network.” Ans. 14-15.
Appellants rebut this determination by identifying pages of other disclosure
in the Specification related to provisions for developing an RAN. Reply Br.
of June 25, 2010, 2-6. Because the rejection neglects to address substantial
portions of the Specification identified by Appellants relating to provisions
for developing an RAN, we do not sustain rejection III.
Appeal 2010-009937
Application 11/161,870

7
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Honcik, or in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Honcik.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Honcik and Appellants’ admitted prior
art.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh