Ex Parte Nama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

13932666 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/932,666 07/01/2013
89955 7590 11/29/2018
HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Naveen VenkateshPrasad Nama
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0039410 (002.2739) 7744
EXAMINER
NG,AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2018 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@honeywell.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
honeywell@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NA VEEN VENKATESHPRASAD NAMA AND
DILIP KUMAR BEHARA
Appeal2017-011842 1
Application 13/932,666
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, AMBER L. HAGY, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 4--20. App. Br. 4. Claims 2 and 3 have been
canceled. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Honeywell International,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-011842
Application 13/932,666
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method for graphically and textually displaying on an onboard aircraft
display weather data collected during a flight, and formatted for a pilot's
review. Spec. ,r 7. In particular, upon receiving weather data from an
onboard weather radar (122), a pilot report (PIREP) data collector (114)
transmits the collected weather data to a PIREP formatter (116) coupled
thereto for converting the collected data into PIREP formatted weather
data presented in a preliminary form for concurrence by the pilot. Spec.
,r,r 8, 24, Fig. 1. The PIREP formatted weather data is then rendered on
the aircraft display in a final PIREP form after pilot concurrence. Id.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
A method for graphically and textually displaying
weather data on an onboard aircraft display, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, by a PIREP (pilot report) data collector,
weather data from an onboard weather radar;
converting, by a PIREP formatter coupled to the PIREP
data collector, the weather data in the PIREP data collector to
PIREP formatted weather data;
displaying, on the aircraft display, the PIREP formatted
weather data in a preliminary form for concurrence by a pilot;
and
rendering, on the aircraft display, the PIREP formatted
weather data in a final PIREP form, after pilot concurrence.
2
Appeal2017-011842
Application 13/932,666
Jiang
Kommuri et al.
Cooper
Prior Art Relied upon
US 6,278,913 Bl Aug. 21, 2001
US 2013/0120166 Al May 16, 2013
US 2013/0245860 Al Sept. 19, 2013
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1 and 4--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kommuri, Jiang, and Cooper. Non-
Final Act. 4--21.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 12-22, and the Reply Brief, pages 3-5. 2
Appellants argue that the combination of Kommuri, Jiang, and Cooper
does not teach or suggest receiving/ram an onboard weather radar weather
data by a PIREP data collector coupled to a PIREP formatter, which
converts the received weather data into PIREP formatted weather data. App.
Br. 14--20. In particular, Appellants argue that Kommuri's disclosure of
receiving weather related data "somewhere and at some time in one place"
for use in a PIREP report on an aircraft display does not teach that the
weather data was received by an onboard PIREP data collector. Reply Br. 3.
Further, Appellants argue that Jiang's disclosure of recording, in a flight log,
2 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellants and all the Examiner's
findings/conclusions, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 27, 2017)
("App. Br."), the ReplyBrief(filed September 27, 2017) ("Reply Br."), the
Non-Final Action from which the appeal is taken (mailed December 28,
2016) ("Non-Final Act."), and the Answer (mailed July 27, 2017) ("Ans.")
for the respective details.
3
Appeal2017-011842
Application 13/932,666
data relating to aircraft operation so as to generate a report for subsequent
evaluation of the pilot's performance and indications of mechanical/system
failures of the aircraft does not teach onboard collection of weather data,
subsequently converted to PIREP formatted weather data. App. Br. 15-16
(citing Jiang 3:7-17, 15:32-36). According to Appellants, although Jiang
discloses a decoder for decoding aircraft operation signals obtained by
sensors thereby converting received data from the format in which it arrives
on the databus to another format accepted for processing and storage on the
memory device, such decoding does not teach a PIREP formatter converting
weather signals into PIREP formatted weather data, or any reports generated
during a flight, rather "[ r ]eport generation in Jiang is decoupled in time from
the collection of data and from the flight itself." App. Br. 17-18 (citing
Jiang 7:40-44, 9:55-58). Appellants additionally argue that Jiang's reports
are not displayed, "on the aircraft display ... in a preliminary form for
concurrence by a pilot." App. Br. 18.
These arguments are persuasive. Kommuri discloses an aircraft
monitoring system for allowing a computing system at a ground location to
communicate a captured flight tracking image (including meteorological
regions associated with an aircraft) for use in a PIREP report, from the
ground display device to a second display device onboard the aircraft.
Kommuri ,r,r 3, 4, 13-16. Further, Jiang discloses an automated flight data
management system for generating reports based on flight data (including
various flight parameters) acquired by airborne databus sensors aboard an
aircraft. Abstr. In particular, Jiang discloses sensor data is sampled, filtered,
decoded, encrypted and compressed prior to being stored on a portable
memory device, and transferred to ground personnel for subsequent
4
Appeal2017-011842
Application 13/932,666
decompressing, decrypting to generate reports so as to analyze the pilot's
performance, as well as the mechanical operation of the aircraft. (Jiang 3:7-
17, 7:38--46).
We do not agree with the Examiner that Kommuri's disclosure of
receiving weather related data for subsequent use in a PIREP report teaches
that such data was (necessarily) received via a PIREP collector. Ans. 4--5
( citing Kommuri ,r 16). Kommuri simply does not specify using a particular
tool, let alone a PIREP collector, for receiving the weather data from an
onboard weather radar. Likewise, we agree with Appellants that although
Jiang discloses a decoder for converting received onboard flight data for
presentation in a report, Jiang does not teach displaying, on the aircraft
display, a report in a preliminary form for concurrence by a pilot. App Br.
18. Because the Examiner has not otherwise established that a PIREP
collector (for receiving weather data from an onboard weather radar) is
coupled to a PIREP formatter (for formatting the weather data) into a PIREP
report, or that such report is displayed in preliminary form on the aircraft
display, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to show on
this record that the proposed combination teaches the disputed limitations set
forth above. 3
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining
arguments.
3 Cooper is relied upon to teach "rendering, on the aircraft display (for
example, the display screen--is able to both provide the briefing output from
the system to the flight crew." Non-Final Act. 6 (citing ,r,r 36 and 39).
5
Appeal2017-011842
Application 13/932,666
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1, as well as of claims 4--20, which recite commensurate limitations.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1 and 4--20 as set forth above.
REVERSED
6