Ex Parte Shamasundar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14559755 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/559,755 12/03/2014
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
07/02/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raghu Shamasundar
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.
H0044716-5435 2798
EXAMINER
WEBER, TAMARA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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
docket@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAGHU SHAMASUNDAR, PRASADRAO RAO PIRADI,
THOMAS D. JUDD, DAVID PEPITONE, ABHISHEK GUPTA,
ADIB BOUANANI, and PRASHANTH RAMANNA
Appeal 2017-010141 1
Application 14/559,755 2
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 8,
2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 26, 2017), the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 4, 2017), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Sept. 21, 2016), and Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed Nov. 28,
2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010141
Application 14/559,755
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he [ e ]mbodiments of the present
invention provide methods and systems for displaying position sensitive
datalink messages on avionics displays." Spec. ,r 3.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An instrument display system for an aircraft, the system
compnsmg:
a flight plan display screen that displays a graphical
representation of at least a part of an aircraft's planned flight
path together with symbology representing a position of the
aircraft with respect to the aircraft's planned flight path;
wherein the flight plan display screen further displays at
least one symbol positioned along the graphical representation
of at least a part of the aircraft's planned flight path, wherein
the flight plan display screen locates the at least one symbol at a
position that indicates a point of applicability along the
aircraft's planned flight path for a received uplink datalink
message;
wherein the received uplink datalink message includes a
conditional clearance request; and
wherein the at least one symbol on the flight plan display
screen indicates a margin until a condition specified by the
conditional clearance request is met based on current aircraft
conditions.
Appeal Br. 19.
2
Appeal2017-010141
Application 14/559,755
REJECTIONS 3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Price4 in view of Fahy5 and
Coulmeau. 6
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Price in view of Fahy, Coulmeau, and Shapiro. 7
3. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Price in view of Fahy, Coulmeau, and Buratto. 8
4. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Price in view of Fahy, Coulmeau, and Pakki. 9
5. The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Price in view of Fahy, Coulmeau, and Ramaiah. 10
6. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Price in view of Fahy, Coulmeau, and Pepitone. 11
DISCUSSION
As discussed below, we are persuaded of reversible error by
Appellants' arguments.
3 We note that the combinations of art applied by the Examiner have
changed for certain claims based on amendments to claims 1 and 14. See
Adv. Act. 2. The Answer includes updated listings of the applicable
rejections on appeal. See Ans. 2-3.
4 Price, US 2003/0193411 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2003.
5 Fahy, US 8,335,988 B2, iss. Dec. 18, 2012.
6 Coulmeau et al., US 2011/0246053 Al, pub. Oct. 6, 2011.
7 Shapiro et al., US 9,132,913 Bl, iss. Sept. 15, 2015.
8 Buratto et al., US 2013/0249712 Al, pub. Sept. 26, 2013.
9 Pakki et al., US 2014/0320417 Al, pub. Oct. 30, 2014.
10 Ramaiah et al., US 2016/0047674 Al, pub. Feb. 18, 2016.
11 Pepitone et al., US 2012/0215388 Al, pub. Aug. 23, 2012.
3
Appeal2017-010141
Application 14/559,755
With respect to claims 1 and 14, the Examiner finds that the
combination of Price and Fahy does not disclose a conditional clearance or
"a margin until the condition is met based on current aircraft conditions."
Final Act. 7, 9. However, the Examiner finds, with respect to Coulmeau:
Id.
Coulmeau discloses a method for aiding the management of an
aircraft flight receiving a control clearance, including the
following features:
wherein the received uplink datalink message includes a
conditional clearance request (paragraphs [0030] and [0083]).
Coulmeau teaches that an aircraft flight management
system which processes conditional clearance requests saves
pilot time (paragraph [0013]). It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use
the conditional clearance processing of Coulmeau with the
flight instrument displays of Price in view of Fahy in order to
efficiently provide the pilot with information ...
Coulmeau further discloses:
wherein the at least one symbol on the flight plan display
screen further indicates a margin until the condition is met
based on current aircraft conditions (paragraphs [0026-0028]
and [0083]).
Coulmeau teaches that an aircraft flight management
system which processes conditional clearance requests saves
pilot time (paragraph [0013]). It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use
the conditional clearance processing of Coulmeau with the
flight instrument displays of Price in view of Fahy in order to
efficiently provide the pilot with information.
We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Coulmeau do not
expressly state that the margin is represented as a symbol on the flight plan
display as required by claims 1 and 14. Rather, we agree with Appellants
that Coulmeau only discloses that the "recognition time" or "modification
4
Appeal2017-010141
Application 14/559,755
time" is determined without any express indication that the time is then
displayed in some manner on the flight plan. Appeal Br. 7. We note that
Coulmeau does disclose:
when the control clearance is a conditional-action heading
clearance signifying that a next heading is assumed to have to
be followed from a conditional time at which a condition is
verified, it comprises a step of displaying the next heading and
the current heading followed by the aircraft at the current time.
Coulmeau ,r 30. However, the display only indicates the change in heading
and does not appear to indicate what the margin is, i.e. Coulmeau determines
a modification or margin time, but this passage does not state that the margin
is displayed. Without further explanation from the Examiner, we agree with
Appellants that the cited portions of Coulmeau "[do] not bridge the gap
between the claims and the cited references to further suggest displaying
such a value along a planned flight path display at a point of applicability
along the aircraft's planned flight path" and the Examiner does not explain
sufficiently how Coulmeau would "suggest modifying the combination of
Price and Fahy to do so." Appeal Br. 7.
Further, we agree with Appellants that the discussion of Fahy in the
Answer only shows points at which a flight path is changed, but does not
appear to include an indication of a margin until a conditional clearance
request is met, as claimed. See Ans. 7-10. In particular, although Fahy
discloses a chronology of the flight path indicating the time order in which
changes to the path occur, Fahy does not seem to "indicate a margin based
on the current aircraft conditions until a condition specified by the
conditional clearance request is met, but merely informs the crew of what
they have been instructed to do." Reply Br. 5. Thus, without further
explanation from the Examiner, the Examiner's reliance on Fahy fails to
5
Appeal2017-010141
Application 14/559,755
show that the gap between the art and the claims discussed above has been
filled.
For these reasons, we are persuaded of reversible error, and we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 14. With respect to the remaining
claims and rejections, the Examiner does not rely on the other art of record
in a manner to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
Thus, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15,
17, 19, and 20.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 19, and
20.
REVERSED
6