Ex Parte Pandit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2017

12333946 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
12/333,946 12/12/2008 Anil Kumar Pandit H0019463 (002.1284) 7292
89955 7590 03/06/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
CASS, JEAN PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANIL KUMAR PANDIT, SRIKANTH RAO,
NAYYAR AZAM KHAN RAO, and NAGARAJ SHAM BHAT
Appeal 2014-0059251
Application 12/333,9462
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 26, 2013), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 17,
2014), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Dec. 12, 2008), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 21, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed June 20, 2013).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-005925
Application 12/333,946
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “generally relates to electronic flight bags
and, more particularly, to an electronic flight bag with improved processing,
display, and communications capabilities.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1 (Appeal Br. 21, Claims App.) is the only independent claim
on appeal, is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is
reproduced below (paragraphing and bracketing added for reference):
1. An electronic flight bag for an aircraft that has an
associated flight manual, the electronic flight bag comprising:
[(a)] a display device coupled to receive display
commands and operable, in response thereto, to render various
images; and
[(b)] a processing system in operable communication with
the display, the processing system configured to
[(bl)] receive fault data from one or more aircraft
systems and operable,
[(b2)] upon receipt of the fault data, to
(i) determine a page in the associated flight
manual that corresponds to the received fault data
and
(ii) supply display commands to the display
device that cause the display device to
automatically render an image of the determined
page in the associated flight manual,
wherein the processing system is further configured to:
[(b3)] receive health data from a plurality of aircraft
displays and aircraft avionics that are representative of
flight deck operability,
[(b4)] determine, upon receipt of the health data,
whether one or more flight deck functions are degraded;
and
2
Appeal 2014-005925
Application 12/333,946
[(b5)] upon determining that one or more flight deck
functions are degraded, to selectively supply display
commands to the display device that cause the display
device to render images representative of a standby
indicator.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4—15, and 17—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stefani (US 2005/0149238 Al, pub.
July 7, 2005) and Trsar (US 2002/0138185 Al, pub. Sept. 26, 2002). Final
Act. 3.
II. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stefani and Vian (US 2006/0112119 Al, pub. May 25,
2006). Id. at 12.
III. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stefani and Joseph Austin, Master Monitor Display
Application Study—F-14, Final Report, Grumman Aerospace
Corporation Bethpage NY Power Optics and Displays Dept. (March
25, 1977) (hereafter referred to as “Austin”). Id. at 18.
IV. Claims 2, 3, and 163 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stefani, Trsar, and Marwaha
(US 2009/0204243 Al, pub. Aug. 13, 2009). Id. at 29.
V. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stefani, Austin, and Walker (US 2003/0093187 Al, pub.
May 15,2004). Id. at 30.
3 Although the body of the rejection refers only to claim 1 (Final Act. 29—
30), the limitations discussed are those of claims 2, 3, and 16. Thus, we
consider the numbering in the body to be harmless error.
3
Appeal 2014-005925
Application 12/333,946
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at
least by a preponderance of the evidence.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that the prior art upon
which the Examiner relies does not disclose that, upon determining that
flight deck functions are degraded based upon received health data, the
processor selectively supplies display commands, as recited in limitation
(b5) of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13—15 and Reply Br. 6—9.
We interpret the claim as broadly as is reasonable in light of the
Specification and without reading limitations from the Specification into the
claims. See In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321—22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Specification does not
specifically define what data comprise “health data,” data that represent
“flight deck operability,” or “images representative of a standby indicator.”
The Specification discusses the flight deck having a main display device
with, for example, a navigation screen and a primary piloting screen.
Spec. 140. In the event the main device becomes degraded or inoperable,
standby indicators “are used to compute and display minimal information
needed to fly and land the aircraft (e.g., airspeed, altitude, and attitude).” Id.
The claimed electronic flight bag (“EFB”) may be used to implement this
function of the standby indicator, saving weight and cost, by performing the
receiving, determining, and displaying functions as claimed in limitations
(b3), (b4), and (b5). Id. 141. Thus, we consider that “health data” includes
data that represent the operability of display devices related to the flight
4
Appeal 2014-005925
Application 12/333,946
deck. We further consider that “images representative of a standby
indicator” includes data that represent the minimal information needed to fly
and land the aircraft.
Rejections I, II, and IV
For rejections I and II, the Examiner relies on Stefani for disclosing
these features of claim 1. Final Act. 3—6, 12—15, 18—21, 30-33; Ans. 4—12
(citing Stefani, Abstract, Figures 1, 3, 4, || 4, 5, 57, 59-64, 73, and claim 1).
The Examiner finds Stefani’s QAR device that “receives health data from
the LRU which includes the displays and the avionics” meets the claimed
health data of limitation (b3). Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds Stefani’s
diagnosis of faulty conditions and determination of whether or not to remove
the LRU meet the claimed determination of limitation (b4). Id. at 11. The
Examiner also finds Stefani’s reporting of information to flight
crew/personnel meets the function of the standby indicator of limitation (b5).
Id. at 11—12.
Stefani discloses that a Quick Access Recorder (“QAR”) device
records signals from “line replaceable units (LRUs), actuators, valves,
sensors, and other various components of a vehicle to determine any
indication of legitimate faults.” Stefani 133. “An LRU may be provided to
monitor and/or control one or more devices such as an actuator, valve,
motor, pump, etc., associated with a particular component or assembly of a
vehicle, such as, for example, an aircraft.” Id. 1 5. A fault is recognized
when condition data collected by the LRUs are compared to normal or
standardized reference data and are considered to not match or be within an
acceptable range of the reference data. Id. Tflf 58—61. After a diagnosis
5
Appeal 2014-005925
Application 12/333,946
performed either automatically or manually, a determination is made as to
whether or not LRU removal is required. Id. 62—64. A status display
may display field indicators of the actual status of the monitoring system to
the user. Id. 173.
Stefani does not explicitly disclose receiving data or signals from the
aircraft displays and avionics. Even assuming arguendo that the displays
and avionics are included in Stefani’s “other various components” to which
LRUs are linked, we do not see, and the Examiner does not adequately
explain, where or how Stefani discloses that, based on a determination of a
degradation, i.e., that the LRU must be replaced, Stefani’s processor supplies
display commands to the status display to display the minimal information
needed to fly and land the aircraft, i.e., images representative of a standby
indicator. At best, Stefani’s processor would supply commands to display
the status of the aircraft displays and avionics as faulty. See Stefani 173.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejections
I and II of independent claim 1 and do not sustain those rejections of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4—15 and 17—21. For the same
reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection IV of dependent
claims 2, 3, and 16, which rely on the same erroneous findings regarding
Stefani.
Rejections III and V
For rejections III and V, the Examiner relies on Stefani and also on
Austin for disclosing these features of claim 1. Final Act. 18—21, 24—26,
6
Appeal 2014-005925
Application 12/333,946
30—33, 36—38, Ans. 26—27 (citing Austin 52, 66, 89,4 Table A-l). For the
reasons discussed above, we find Stefani does not disclose the features.
The cited pages of Austin disclose that, for detection of faults, there is
an automatic display of warning indicators that vary based on the severity of
the fault and required action by the crew, and of a prescribed course of
action for the fault. Austin 66, 83. Table A-l of Austin discloses the areas
for which data are input into the master monitor display.
However, we do not see, and the Examiner does not adequately
explain, where or how Austin discloses that the master monitor display
receives data from the display or avionics, determines a degradation of the
display based on the data, or sends commands to display the minimal
information needed to fly and land the aircraft, as required by claim 1. To
the extent the Examiner relies on Walker for disclosing a standby indicator
(Final Act. 38), we do not see, and the Examiner does not adequately
explain, how Walker’s standby indicator meets the limitations (b3), (b4),
and/or (b5) of claim 1.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejections III
and IV of independent claim 1 and do not sustain those rejections of claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—15, and 17—21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Stefani and Trsar is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Stefani and Vian is REVERSED.
4 The Examiner inserts a portion of Austin and cites to page 89 for that
insert. However, the inserted portion is on page 83 of Austin.
7
Appeal 2014-005925
Application 12/333,946
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Stefani and Austin is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Stefani, Trsar, and Marwaha is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Stefani, Austin, and Walker is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8