Ex Parte Ovens

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2017

13596642 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 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.
13/596,642 08/28/2012 Norman Leonard Ovens 258601/71966-0121 8928
91753 7590 09/14/2017
General Electric Company
Global Patent Operation-Aviation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
SOROWAR, GOLAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2017 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORMAN LEONARD OVENS
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 7—10, 12—14, and 18—21, which are all the claims
pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to aircraft
systems for exchanging data. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
1. An aircraft system for exchanging data between an
aircraft having multiple aircraft systems and an operator, the
aircraft system comprising:
a first near-field communication interface, located in a
first location on the aircraft, that acquires data from at least
some of the multiple aircraft systems;
a handheld device having a second near-field
communication interface that when brought within close
proximity to the aircraft, exchanges authorization data with first
near-field communication interface, establishes communication
via induction, and exchanges information through the near-field
communication interfaces for the at least some of the multiple
aircraft systems and the handheld device, including at least one
of: flight plan information, flight data, or aircraft weight and
balance information; and
a surveillance system, in a second location, that monitors
the exchange of authorization data with the first near-field
communication interface.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 3—5, and 12—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dobosz (US 2010/0233957 Al, pub. Sept. 16,
2010), Huomo (US 2012/0196529 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2012), and Pikkarainen
(US 2012/0038456 Al, pub. Feb. 16, 2012).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Dobosz, Huomo, Pikkarainen, and Chen (US 2013/0344804 Al, pub.
Dec. 26, 2013).
Claims 8—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dobosz, Huomo, Pikkarainen, and Krasner (US
2009/0286504 Al, pub. Nov. 19, 2009).
2
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dobosz, Huomo, Pikkarainen, and Poblete (US
2003/0117494 Al, pub. June 26, 2003).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dobosz, Huomo, Pikkarainen, and Roques (US
2006/0245620 Al, pub. Nov. 2, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
I
Appellant contends:
the transaction data described in Huomo includes “payment
data; purchase data; product data; ticket data; reservation data” .
. . Huomo does not relate to acquiring data from aircraft
systems, and it is readily apparent that exchanging the
transaction data, described in Huomo, does not suggest
exchanging data “including at least one of flight plan
information, flight data, or aircraft weight and balance
information, ” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 13; see also App. Br. 11—13.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. “Two separate tests define
the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
3
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
involved.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted) (emphases added). “Whether a reference in the prior art is
‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (citations omitted).
To determine this invention’s field of endeavor, we consider the
“explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application,
including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed
invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations
omitted).
The Examiner finds—and Appellant fails to persuasively dispute—
Dobosz, Huomo, and this invention are analogous art because they are in the
same field of endeavor. See Final Act. 3—4.1 Therefore, the Examiner
properly combines the teachings of Dobosz and Huomo for mapping the
limitations of claim 1.
Further, the Examiner finds—and Appellant does not dispute—
Dobosz teaches “exchanges information . . . including at least one of: flight
plan information, flight data, or aircraft weight and balance information.”
See Final Act. 3^4. Therefore, Huomo does not need to separately teach the
same elements.
II
Appellant contends with respect to Pikkarainen:
1 The Final Action refers to Huomo as “Rose” at one point, which appears to
be a typographical error. See Final Act. 4. The Final Action properly
references “Huomo” in the heading and at other points. See Final Act. 3, 5—
6.
4
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
Monitoring access to areas using RFID tags incorporated into
badges and products, as disclosed in Pikkarainen, does not
relate to exchanging “authorization data with first near-field
communication interface, establishes communication via
induction,” and does not make teach, suggest or disclose “a
surveillance system, in a second location, that monitors the
exchange of authorization data with the first near-field
communication interface (emphasis added)” as recited in
claim 1.
App. Br. 15; see also App. Br. 14, 17. Appellant also contends there
is no motivation to combine Pikkarainen with Dobosz and Huomo.
See App. Br. 16—17. Appellant argues the Examiner does not provide
a sufficient reason for combining the references, and the rejection is
based on hindsight. See App. Br. 17—18.
First, similar to the discussions above, the Examiner finds—and
Appellant fails to persuasively dispute—Dobosz, Huomo, Pikkarainen, and
this invention are analogous art because they are in the same field of
endeavor. See Final Act. 3—5. Therefore, the Examiner properly combines
the teachings of Dobosz, Huomo, and Pikkarainen for mapping the
limitations of claim 1.
Second, in response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner provides
further findings showing Dobosz, Huomo, and Pikkarainen collectively
teach the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 18—25. Appellant fails to
persuasively respond to such findings and therefore, fails to show error in
the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
5
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
Further, we have examined the Examiner’s findings, and such
findings are supported by preponderance of the evidence. The Examiner
finds—and Appellant does not persuasively dispute—Dobosz and Huomo
collectively teach “exchanges authorization data with first near-field
communication interface.” See Final Act. 3—5. The Examiner correctly
finds Pikkarainen teaches “a surveillance system, in a second location, that
monitors [information.]” See Final Act. 5; Pikkarainen Abstr. (“A . . .
system includes an RFID reader configured to read an RFID tag to
authenticate access to a predefined area, a laser scanner configured to scan
the predefined area and detect an object in the predefined area[.]”).
Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds Dobosz, Huomo and
Pikkarainen collectively teach “a surveillance system, in a second location,
that monitors the exchange of authorization data with the first near-field
communication interface.”
Third, the U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Further, “[i]f the claim extends to what is obvious, it
is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418—19.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act.
4-6; Ans. 16-17, 19-20, 22, 2A-25; KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
6
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
398, 418 (2007). Appellant does not persuasively show why such reasoning
is incorrect.
The Examiner’s findings and conclusion are reasonable because the
skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellant does not
present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418—19). In particular, Appellant’s unsupported attorney argument
that “[a]ny attempt to combine the teachings of Pikkarainen with the
proposed combination of Dubosz and Huomo would require substantial
modification making the combination insufficient to render the claims prima
facie obvious” (App. Br. 16) is unpersuasive. Further, Appellant’s
arguments about modifying Pikkarainen’s system (App. Br. 17) are not
directed to the proposed combination, as the Examiner modifies Dubosz’s
system (as modified by Huomo’s relevant feature) to incorporate
Pikkarainen’s feature discussed above.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying Pikkarainen’s
technique in the Dubosz (and Huomo) system would have predictably used
prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Fourth, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that the proposed
combination is motivated by impermissible hindsight. Our reviewing courts
have not established a bright-line test for hindsight. The U.S. Supreme
7
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
Court guides that “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion
caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex
post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,36 (1966)). Nevertheless, the Court has also
qualified the issue of hindsight by stating “[rjigid preventative rules that
deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary
under our case law nor consistent with it.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
In the present case, we see the hindsight question before us as a
balancing test: whether (1) the Examiner’s proffered combination of
references is merely ’’the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417), consistent with common
sense; or (2) an artisan would not have reasonably combined the cited
references in the manner proffered by the Examiner but for having the
benefit of the claim to use as a guide (i.e., impermissible hindsight).
As discussed above, Appellant has not demonstrated the Examiner’s
proffered combination of references would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d
at 1162. Further, after reviewing the respective teachings and suggestions of
the cited references, we find the weight of the evidence shows the proffered
combination is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions, because the combination uses prior art elements
based on their well-known functions. Therefore, on this record, Appellant
has not persuaded us the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
8
Appeal 2017-002852
Application 13/596,642
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 3—5, 7—10, 12—14, and 18—21, as Appellant does not advance separate
substantive arguments for patentability about those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—5, 7—10, 12—
14, and 18-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9