Ex Parte Orf et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 27, 2007

10964038 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 27, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROGER A. ORF and PHILIP I. STRAUB
____________________

Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: November 27, 2007
____________________

Before: TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

1
2
3
4
5
6
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the final
rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).

Appeal No. 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The Appellants’ invention relates to methods for configuring avionic
equipment including electronic devices, control dials, flight displays and
software/firmware which present information to pilots before and during
flight. (Specification 2 and 6). Typically, when a pilot takes command of an
aircraft, the pilot manually enters information relating to the flight (such as
the flight plan) and information relating to the pilot’s preferences with
regard to the avionics equipment (such as the preferred units associated with
displayed flight settings or options including instrument readings). Entering
each such item of information by hand can be time consuming, tedious and
undesirable for the pilot. (Specification 2).
The invention addresses this problem by associating “profile data”
with a unique identifier for use by a specific pilot. When the pilot takes
command of the aircraft, the profile data associated with the pilot’s identifier
is “used to configure one or more display fields, flight plans, map settings,
navigation fields, communication transceiver spacing, date/time setup,
displayed units of measure, timers, alarms, and/or other communication,
navigation, or surveillance settings associated with avionic equipment.”
(Specification 3).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the Appellants’ claims and reads
as follows:
1. A method of configuring profile data
in avionic equipment, comprising:
receiving an identifier associated with the
profile data;
automatically using the identifier to acquire
the profile data; and
configuring the avionic equipment to present
the profile data, which displays
preferences associated with a pilot,
2
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
wherein the avionic equipment is
configured by displaying avionic
information in desired screen field
locations as defined in the profile
data.
8. A method of retrieving profile data to
configure avionic equipment, comprising:
receiving a request to retrieve the profile
data to configure the avionic
equipment with preferences
associated with a pilot;
locating the profile data;
retrieving the profile data; and
configuring the avionic equipment with the
retrieved profile data, wherein the
avionic equipment is configured by
displaying avionic information in
desired screen field locations with
desired units as defined in
the profile data.
16. A method to configure avionic
equipment, comprising:
inputting, by a pilot, an identifier for profile
data, wherein the profile data is
associated with preferences of the
pilot;
automatically acquiring and loading the
profile data into avionic equipment of
an aircraft; and
presenting the preferences on one or more
displays associated with the aircraft,
wherein presenting the preferences
includes configuring one or more
display fields of the avionic
equipment.

3
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Claims 1-7, 16-21 and 23 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Obradovich (U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2005/0080528) in view of Richard (U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2002/0111715) and Smith (U.S. Patent No. 6,466,235). Claims 8-12,
14, 15 and 22 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Obradovich in view of Richard, Smith and Barnard (U.S.
Patent No. 6,456,938).
We reverse.

ISSUE
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
contending that configuring avionic equipment by displaying avionic
information in desired screen field locations as defined in acquired profile
data or associated preferences would have been obvious.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

1. Obradovich discloses a control and management system for
controlling other systems in an automobile. (Obradovich 1, ¶ 0002).
Obradovich’s control and management system includes a security system
which controls access to the automobile and the automobile’s other systems
and accessories. (Obradovich 6, ¶ 0079). The security system allows the
owner of the automobile to assign each authorized user of the vehicle a PIN
number along with a clearance level which specifies the systems and
4
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
accessories which the user is permitted to access. (Obradovich 6, ¶ 0080
and 7, ¶ 0083). The security system includes a radio frequency (“RF”)
receiver. Each authorized user is provided with an access card having an
electronic storage chip containing that authorized user’s PIN number.
(Obradovich 6-7, ¶ 0082). When an authorized user wishes to drive the
automobile, the authorized user presents the user’s access card to an RF
transmitter which reads the card and transmits the PIN number to the RF
receiver in the security system to verify the user’s clearance to access the
automobile. (Obradovich 7, ¶¶ 0085-87).
2. In addition to the authorized user’s PIN number, the access card
also may store personal preference data “contain[ing] information regarding
the user preferred settings of the doors, locks, windows, engine, performance
profiles, climate control, audio system and other vehicle functions.”
(Obradovich 7, ¶ 0084). This personal preference data is transmitted to the
RF receiver in the security system with an authorized user’s PIN number
when that authorized user seeks access to the automobile. Once the PIN
number is recognized, the control and management system stores the
personal preference data and uses the data to effect preferred vehicle
settings. (Obradovich 7, ¶ 0087).
3. Richard discloses on-board computer systems with graphical
user interfaces permitting users to access and control broad spectra of
systems and services in vehicles such as automobiles, boats and airplanes.
(Richard 1, ¶ 0015).
4. Smith discloses a multi-functional electronic flight display
which displays information such as map views and instrument functions.
The reference teaches that different views and instrument functions are
5
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
displayed in separate sections (for example, quadrants) of the display.
(Smith, col. 2, ll. 15-19 and col. 3, ll. 51-63). The multi-functional display is
reconfigurable before or during flight. A pilot may bring up new
information into a desired section of the display by selecting the new
information from a pop-up menu associated with the desired section.
(Smith, col. 3, l. 64 – col. 4, l. 12). Other controls permit the pilot to expand
or compress the sections allocated to various types of information. (e.g.,
Smith, col. 2, ll. 20-25 and col. 4, l. 53 – col. 5, l. 4).
5. Barnard discloses a personal differential GPS-based system for
creating and displaying maps of golf courses. (Barnard, col. 5, ll. 21-24 and
col. 6, ll. 29-33). During play, the system displays various distances on the
golf course. (e.g., Barnard, col. 31, ll. 5-13). The system includes a setup
feature for setting player preferences. (Barnard, col. 26, ll. 15-23). These
preferences include system units, that is, whether distances will be displayed
in English or metric units. (Barnard, col. 26, ll. 46-54).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if
“the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to which said subject matter pertains.” In Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1 (1966), the Supreme Court set out factors to be considered in
determining whether claimed subject matter would have been obvious:

Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art
are to be determined; differences between the prior
6
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained;
and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
resolved. Against this background the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
determined.

Id., 383 U.S. at 17.
An Examiner cannot establish a prima facie case that a claim is
obvious “merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). Since not every combination of prior art teachings
which happens to show each of the elements recited in a claim will suffice to
establish a prima facie case for obviousness, the Examiner must provide
reasons why the teachings of a particular combination suffice. That is, in
order to establish a prima facie case that claimed subject matter is obvious,
the Examiner must articulate reasons consistent with the level of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention why (in the words of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)) “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
The Examiner must derive these reasons from what was within the
common knowledge or common sense of those skilled in the art at the time
of the invention and not from the applicant’s specification. See Graham,
383 U.S. at 36 (warning against “the temptation to read into the prior art the
teachings of the invention at issue”). On the other hand, the reasons need not
be stated explicitly in a prior art reference. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741 (“[T]he
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
7
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
matter of the challenged claim . . . .”). The Examiner may look to
“interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, all in order to
determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion” recited in the claim. Id. at 1740-41.

ANALYSIS
The first two steps in determining whether the Examiner has
established a prima facie case for obviousness are to determine the scope
and content of the prior art; and to ascertain the differences between the
prior art and the claims at issue. The prior art of record includes the
teachings of Obradovich, Richard, Smith and Barnard. In order to ascertain
the differences between this prior art and representative claim 1, the scope of
claim 1 must be determined.
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re American Acad. Of
Science Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim 1 is limited to “[a] method of configuring profile data in
avionic equipment, comprising . . . automatically using the identifier to
acquire the profile data. . . wherein the avionic equipment is configured by
displaying avionic information in desired screen field locations as defined in
the profile data.” [Emphasis added.] That is, claim 1 is limited to a method
8
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which configures avionic equipment by displaying avionic information in
desired screen field locations as defined in acquired profile data. (See
Amendment, Mar. 14, 2006 at 8). Independent claim 8 is likewise limited to
a method which configures avionic equipment by displaying avionic
information in desired screen field locations as defined in acquired profile
data. Independent claim 16 is worded differently but contains essentially the
same limitation. Specifically, claim 16 is directed to a method to configure
avionic equipment by presenting preferences, associated with acquired
profile data, wherein presenting the preferences includes configuring one or
more display fields of the avionic equipment. We construe the language
“presenting the preferences includes configuring one or more display fields
of the avionic equipment” as requiring that the one or more display fields of
the avionic equipment are configured as defined by the preferences, which is
associated with the profile data.
The Examiner concedes that, “[a]lthough Obradovich discloses the
preference data comprising configuration data for performance profiles,
climate control, and other vehicle functions, Obradovich does not explicitly
disclose the preference data displaying vehicle information in desired screen
field locations.” (Ans. 4). Likewise, the Examiner has not pointed to any
teaching within Richard or Barnard concerning methods which configure
avionic equipment by displaying avionic information in desired screen field
locations as defined in acquired profile data, or associated preferences.
The third step in determining whether the Examiner has established a
prima facie case for obviousness is to resolve the level of ordinary skill in
the art. The record fails to demonstrate that the level of ordinary skill in the
9
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
art at the time of the invention was sufficient to bridge the differences
between the prior art and the claimed invention.
The Examiner contends, essentially, that this is a case where a known
technique is used to improve a similar device in the same way. More
specifically, Smith discloses the use of multiple pop-up menus to configure
the screen fields of a multi-functional avionic display. (FF 4). Obradovich
discloses the use of preference data to pre-configure settings for vehicle
functions. In addition, Obradovich teaches the desirability of simplifying
the controls in a vehicle so that the user is not “distracted by the large
number of knobs, switches and buttons used in the prior art, which are
dispersed throughout the vehicle.” (Obradovich 1, ¶¶ 11-12). The
Examiner contends that one skilled in the art would have had reason to
modify Obradovich’s “preference data” to define screen field locations in an
avionic display so as to simplify the control of the display by reducing the
need to manually configure the locations of information using the multiple
pop-up menus. (Ans. 22; see also Ans. 16-17 and 24).
The record does not support this contention. The personal preference
data stored with an authorized user’s PIN number on one of Obradovich’s
access cards “contains information regarding the user preferred settings of
the doors, locks, windows, engine, performance profiles, climate control,
audio system and other vehicle functions.” (FF 2). At most, the combined
teachings of Obradovich and Smith imply that the prior art encompassed
configuring vehicle systems using acquired profile data defining those
settings which Smith refers to as “instrument functions.”
The combined teachings of Obradovich and Smith fail to provide a
reason why the configuration of avionic equipment by displaying avionic
10
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
information in desired screen field locations as defined in acquired profile
data or associated preferences would have been obvious from the use of
acquired profile data to pre-configure the settings of instrument functions.
Obradovich’s teaching concerns the desirability of simplifying the controls
of a vehicle related specifically to the centralization of the control of system
functions in a master interface (Obradovich 1, ¶¶ 11-12), a feature already
possessed by Smith’s display; nothing in the teachings of Obradovich and
Smith suggests an appreciation among those skilled in the art that modifying
preference data of the type described by Obradovich to define screen field
location for displaying avionic information would simplify the control of the
avionic equipment as a whole or the display in particular. Nothing in the
teachings of Richard and Barnard overcomes this deficiency.
On the record before us, an element of each of independent claims 1,
8, and 16 was not within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly,
the Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8, and 16, as well as claims 2-7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-23 depending
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, the Appellants have shown that the claims
are limited to a method which configures avionic equipment by displaying
avionic information in desired screen field locations as defined in acquired
profile data. By demonstrating, on the record before us, that this element
was missing from the prior art, the Appellants have shown that the Examiner
11
Appeal 2007-3208
Application 10/964,038

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
erred in rejecting the appealed claims as unpatentable over Obradovich in
view of Richard and Smith and Obradovich in view of Richard, Smith, and
Barnard.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-12 and 14-23 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
REVERSED

vsh

GARMIN LTD.
C/O GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ATTN: Legal – IP
1200 EAST 151ST STREET
OLATHE, KS 66062
12