Ex Parte Myers et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 22, 2011

11067181 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT J. MYERS and MICHAEL P. SNOW
____________________

Appeal 2010-002667
Application 11/067,181
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002667
Application 11/067,181
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-24. Br. 1. Claims 7, 10, and 11
are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1,
reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A system for on-board dispatching of an aircraft, comprising:
a flight dispatching apparatus positioned within the aircraft
that is configured to perform one or more of the following flight
dispatching tasks on-board the aircraft: preparing a weight and
balance plan, preparing a fuel burn plan, preparing a flight plan, and
preparing a flight dispatch release; and
a communications apparatus positioned within the aircraft and
operatively coupled to the flight dispatching apparatus, the
communications apparatus being configured to exchange wireless
signals between the flight dispatching apparatus and one or more
ground-based facilities.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Ariens US 6,597,294 B1 Jul. 22, 2003
Roy
Hensey
US 2003/0030581 A1
US 2003/0109973 A1
Feb. 13, 2003
Jun. 12, 2003

Rejections
I. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 16-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ariens and Roy.
II. Claims 13-15, 19, 20, 23, and 241 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ariens, Roy, and Hensey.

1 The statement of rejection omits claims 23 and 24, but we consider this a
typographical error as these claims are discussed in the rejection. Ans. 7-8.
Appellants acknowledge claims 23 and 24 are covered by this rejection. Br.
12.
Appeal 2010-002667
Application 11/067,181
3
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

OPINION
Claim 1
Appellants raise the issue of whether the Examiner has shown that
Ariens and Roy render obvious a system that is “configured to perform” one
or more tasks on board an aircraft, each task involving “preparing” a plan or
a flight dispatch release. Br. 8-10.
The Examiner found that the electronic flight bag (EFB) of Ariens
satisfies this limitation, by providing various data and the dispatch release to
be carried into the cockpit. Ans. 9-10. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding (Ans. 10) that the EFB of Ariens provides data relevant to preparing,
for example, a flight plan. See, e.g., Ariens, col. 1, l. 65 to col. 2, l. 35
(noting mapping and weather data). Likewise, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Ariens teaches the dispatch release on the EFB while the EFB is
inside the cockpit. Ariens, col. 2, ll. 32-35.
However, the Examiner does not point to, nor do we find, any
teaching in Ariens that discusses the EFB being configured to perform a task
of preparing the one or more of the claimed plans while on the aircraft. The
EFB is carried to the cockpit already uploaded with a dispatch release.
Ariens, col. 2, ll. 32-35. This statement in Ariens does not indicate whether
the EFB is configured to perform the task of preparing that dispatch release,
let alone while on the aircraft. Further, simply providing mapping data
(presumably, so that a pilot could manually prepare a flight plan) does not
mean that the EFB itself is configured to prepare a flight plan. Likewise,
even if the EFB, by virtue of being a computer having the appropriate data,
Appeal 2010-002667
Application 11/067,181
4
could be further configured to prepare one or more of the claimed plans, the
claim specifically requires that the EFB is actually configured to perform the
task of preparing the plan(s). The Examiner does not make any findings
with respect to Roy that would cure this factual deficiency. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s factual basis is insufficient to conclude that Ariens and Roy
render obvious a system that is configured to perform a task of preparing one
or more of the plans as required by claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2-6 does not include any additional findings or technical
analysis that cures the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1.

Claim 16
Independent claim 16 requires, in relevant part, a dispatching
workstation “operable to perform selected pre-flight dispatching tasks
aboard the aircraft,” the tasks including preparing at least one of various
plans or a flight dispatch release. Appellants argue claim 16 as a group with
claim 1 (Br. 8), but the Examiner provides a different explanation as to how
Ariens and Roy render obvious the claimed subject matter (Ans. 6-7).
Accordingly, the issue with respect to the rejection of claim 16 is similar to
that of claim 1, but we address this claim separately.
For claim 16, the Examiner found that Ariens teaches the claimed
workstation at column 2, lines 32-35 (Ans. 6), which in turn discusses the
EFB being uploaded with a dispatch release. Similar to our reasoning supra,
however, an EFB uploaded with a dispatch release does not teach the EFB
operable to perform a task of preparing that dispatch release. The Examiner
next finds that it is inherent that “flight crew … would [be] capable of
performing above mentioned function or analysis/plan generation once an
[EFB] … is equipped in the cockpit.” Ans. 6-7. However, whether a person
Appeal 2010-002667
Application 11/067,181
5
can use the EFB as a data source to prepare a flight plan is different from an
EFB operable to perform a task of preparing a dispatch release. The
Examiner does not make a finding that the EFB in Ariens is operable to
prepare a dispatch release in the manner required by claim 16. Accordingly,
the Examiner’s factual basis is insufficient to conclude that Ariens and Roy
render obvious a system that is operable to prepare one or more of the plans
as required by claim 16. The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 17-
22 do not include any additional findings or analysis that cures the
deficiency of the rejection of claim 16.

Claim 23
Independent claim 23 recites a method comprising “using a computer
and communications system, both onboard an aircraft, to share flight
dispatching tasks with a main dispatch center (MDC),” the tasks including
preparing at least one of various plans or a flight dispatch release on-board
the aircraft. The Examiner found that Ariens teaches this method, citing to
column 2, lines 30-40. Ans. 8. As we discuss supra, Ariens teaches in this
section that the EFB allows pilots to upload information, including a
“dispatch release,” “to be carried to the cockpit prior to a flight.”
Appellants argue that Ariens merely teaches collection, compilation,
and display of information, and that Ariens suggests, “an entity other than
the EFB (e.g., a flight dispatch center) prepares the dispatch release.” Br.
13. Accordingly, Appellants raise the issue of whether Ariens teaches
“using a computer and communications system … to share flight dispatching
tasks with a main dispatch center (MDC)” in the manner required by claim
23.
Appeal 2010-002667
Application 11/067,181
6
The Examiner does not explain how Ariens teaches using the EFB
onboard an aircraft to share one or more of the claimed tasks with a MDC.
As Appellants point out, the “dispatch release” is brought into the cockpit,
pre-loaded in the EFB. See Ariens, col. 2, ll. 32-35 (a memory card in the
EFB allows the “dispatch release to be carried to the cockpit prior to a
flight”). As such, the EFB is not being used onboard an aircraft to share a
task of preparing a dispatch release; the task already was completed prior to
the EFB’s arrival on the aircraft. The Examiner does not make any other
findings with respect to Roy or Hensey regarding the limitations of claim 23.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 is in error for lacking a
sufficient factual basis to support a conclusion of obviousness. The
Examiner’s rejections of claims 8, 9, 12-15, and 24 do not contain any
findings or explanations that cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim
23.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 9,
and 12-24.

REVERSED

hh