Ex Parte Small et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2017

13307250 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
13/307,250 11/30/2011 GREGORY J. SMALL 11-1026-US-NP-147 1065
62616 7590 04/14/2017
MOORE AND VAN AT .TEN PLLC FOR BOEING
P.O. Box 13706
3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard, Suite 400
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EXAMINER
MANSFIELD, THOMAS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2017 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):
iplaw @ mvalaw. com
u sptomail @ m valaw. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY J. SMALL and CHRISTOPHER R. SMALL
Appeal 2014—009836
Application 13/307,250
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Gregory J. Small and Christopher R. Small (Appellants) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1—6, 8—16, 18—26, 28,
and 29, the only claims pending in the application on appeal.2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed March 3, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 17,
2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 17, 2014), and Final
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 20, 2013).
2 The Examiner erroneously includes claim 17 on the Final Action cover
sheet. Claim 17 was cancelled in an amendment filed June 13, 2013.
Appeal 2014-009836
Application 13/307,250
The Appellants invented a way of using checklists associated with a
vehicle or system, such as an aircraft or other vehicle or system, and more
particularly to customized checklist creation, execution, and communication
of checklist completion activity. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method for creating, executing and communicating
customized, automated checklists, comprising:
[1] dynamically creating, by a computer processor, a
customized checklist including a plurality of checklist items;
[2] transmitting, by the computer processor, a notification to a
predetermined recipient that the customized checklist is
available;
[3] displaying, by the computer processor, the customized
checklist on an interface device
in response to the customized checklist being selected by
the recipient;
[4] updating, by the computer processor, a status of each
checklist item
in response to each checklist item being completed;
[5] determining, by the computer processor if a new checklist is
available during execution of an existing checklist;
[6] notifying the recipient, by the computer processor, that the
new checklist is available during the execution of the existing
checklist; and
[7] presenting, by the computer processor, an option for the
recipient to select one of
continuing execution of the existing checklist
or
2
Appeal 2014-009836
Application 13/307,250
switching to execute the new checklist.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Glenn US 2002/0165647 A1 Nov. 7, 2002
Sham US 2010/0312420 A1 Dec. 9, 2010
Lear US 8,260,736 B1 Sept. 4, 2012
Claims 1—6, 8, 10-16, and 18—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Glenn.3
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Glenn and Sham.
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glenn and Lear.
ISSUES
The issues of anticipation and obviousness turn primarily on whether
Glenn describes allowing a user to choose between checklists.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
3 The Examiner omits claim 8 and erroneously includes cancelled claim 17
from the statutory statement of rejection. Final Act. 5. The analysis
includes claim 8. Id. at 9.
3
Appeal 2014-009836
Application 13/307,250
Glenn
01. Glenn is directed to electronic flight information management
systems. Glenn para. 2.
02. Glenn describes a process and set of software tools for:
1. Marking up and restructuring of flight information content
such as manuals, checklists, aerodynamic data, and alerting
information; 2. Converting and storing this content in an
electronic form, such as XML; 3. Dynamically generating a user
interface based on the specific data; 4. Delivering this data in a
variety of ways to the flight crew of fixed wing aircraft/rotorcraft,
both in—flight and on the ground using a stand-alone software
application capable of running under multiple operating systems;
and 5. Providing remote data updates and management of all
fielded flight kit applications via Internet connectivity, via a
multi-tiered client/server infrastructure Glenn paras. 11—16.
03. Once the initial conversion process is complete, raw electronic
data is taken and flight kit specific mark-up tags are applied to
prepare individual files to adhere to the Document Type
Definition (DTD) standard for both the flight manual and pilot
checklists portions of the flight kit application. The marked up
files are then fed through a custom LISP program which converts
the marked up electronic documents into two valid XML structure
documents (one flight manual, one checklist) and many XML files
representing leaf content (using the html32.dtd). A JAVA
application is then used to convert the XML content files to valid
4
Appeal 2014-009836
Application 13/307,250
HTML files so they are viewable without the need for a special
XML viewer. Next, a file is created defining the view and
navigation through content in the application. At the same time,
another file is created which maps meaningful symbols used in the
navigation file to less meaningful symbols used in the structure
documents. In this second file, the content creator can also define
queries which allow easy updating of the navigation file as the
content of the structure documents change. A map or generation
program is implemented to detect content changes and reconfigure
the system accordingly. An Alias-Mapper XML file links a user
interface builder XML file to a file containing particular document
content. The Alias-mapper XML file is provided to a main
mapper program, along with an XML structure file. The main
mapper program acts on a user interface builder XML file. User
interface builder XML file and XML structure file are processed
by the application generator program. Applications generated by
program are provided to flight kit applications. Glenn para. 34.
04. An ID to Alias Mapper XML file can be used as a linkage
between the user interface builder XML file and the particular
structure XML files which contain the unique content for a
specific flight manual. This Mapper file defines queries that map
variables used to link crucial user interface elements and user
interface actions in the user interface builder to relevant content
contained in the structure files. The Mapper XML allows easy
automation of the task of updating the flight kit content from a
new revision of the same flight manual. Glenn para. 35.
5
Appeal 2014-009836
Application 13/307,250
05. At this time, non-textual XML data (e.g., numerical data
representing curves on an aerodynamic chart) and a JAVA code
module (e.g., a code block representing the calculator algorithm
and visual representation of the calculator, following a set API)
are added which define a performance data calculator. The flight
kit dynamically configures itself based on these files at startup.
Glenn para. 36.
06. Content update notifications are broadcast from a central server.
Secondary servers, possibly on a fleet by fleet basis, then decide
whether the received update notifications are relevant to their
flight kit users. These secondary servers then have the ability to
add specialized content of their own to the default flight kit
content. The secondary servers then determine which the flight kit
users need to be upgraded based on stored information concerning
the registered clients. The flight kit users would then need to be
docked to the secondary server which can then update the content
on the user as well as upgrade its own knowledge of the user’s
status. Glenn para. 64.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
the secondary servers decide whether the received update
notifications from a central server are relevant to their flight kit
users and the flight kit users need to be docked to the secondary
server in order for the flight kit content to be upgraded.
Clearly, Glenn fails to teach or suggest “notifying the recipient
... that a new checklist is available during the execution of the
existing checklist” and ’’’presenting ... an option for the
6
Appeal 2014-009836
Application 13/307,250
recipient to select one of continuing execution of the existing
checklist or switching to execute the new checklist” as recited
in claim 1.
App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that
the Appellants are claiming an optional choice to select one of
either two claimed features which is nothing different from
Glenn’s paragraph 64 updating and upgrading of a checklist.
Glenn specifically teaches presenting, by the computer
processor, an option for the recipient to select one of continuing
execution of the existing checklist or switching to execute the
new checklist (allows easy automation of the task of updating
the flight kit content from a new revision of the same flight
manual; ability to add specialized content of their own to the
default flight kit content) (see at least paragraphs 35, 37, 64).
Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted). The problem for the Examiner is that, as
Appellants contend, it is not Glenn’s user that makes the selection as
claimed but Glenn’s secondary server. FF 06. The remaining independent
claims have similar limitations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1—6, 8, 10-16, and 18—26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Glenn is improper.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Glenn and Sham is improper.
The rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glenn and Lear is improper.
7
Appeal 2014-009836
Application 13/307,250
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—6, 8—16, 18—26, 28, and 29 is reversed.
REVERSED
8