Ex Parte Stange

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2016

13073627 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/073,627
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
03/28/2011
02/12/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kent Stange
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.
H0029592 (002.0283) 8276
EXAMINER
CASS, JEANPAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2016 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
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT ST ANGE
Appeal2014-000766
Application 13/073,627
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kent Stange (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods and systems for translating an
emergency system alert signal to an automated flight system maneuver.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal2014-000766
Application 13/073,627
1. A system for translating an alert signal into an auto flight
system (AFS) maneuver for an aircraft comprising:
a first module, the first module configured to receive the
alert signal from an emergency system and to construct one or
more AFS mode commands associated with the alert signal;
a second module, the second module configured to read
and to execute the one or more AFS mode commands, wherein
when executed the one or more AFS mode commands
manipulate two or more standard AFS modes that implement the
AFS maneuver; and
a state machine, the state machine coupling the first
module to the second module, the state machine configured to
coordinate construction of the one or more AFS mode commands
by the first module with an execution of the one or more AFS
mode commands by the second module to control an engine or a
flight control surface of the aircraft to affect the AFS maneuver.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bateman
Jourdan
US 2004/0215372 Al Oct. 28, 2004
US 7,295,134 B2 Nov. 13, 2007
REJECTIONS 1
I. Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
II. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bateman.
III. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Jourdan.
1 The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn. Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2014-000766
Application 13/073,627
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellant does not address this rejection. See Appeal Br. 8.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims
5 and 15 as indefinite. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).2
Rejection II
Claims 1-12 and 17-20
The Examiner finds that Bateman discloses each and every limitation
of independent claim 1. Final Act. 19-21. In particular, the Examiner
identifies Bateman's warning system 22 as corresponding to the claimed
first module. See Ans. 7.
Contending that Bateman's warning system 22 does not "construct
one or more AFS mode commands associated with [an] alert signal,"
Appellant argues that Bateman's warning system 22 "merely sends alerts."
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). In support of this argument, Appellant
notes that "Bateman states that its warning system 22 only issues a caution
or a warning along with an integrity flag to the auto-recovery system 24 (i.e.,
the Examiner's "second module")." Reply Br. 7 (citing Bateman i-fi-123-24
and 26).
The rejection does not identify where Bateman's warning system 22 is
configured to construct one or more AFS mode commands as required by
claim 1. Appeal Br. 22. It is not readily apparent that Bateman's warning
system 22 is configured to construct such commands. Thus, Appellant's
argument is persuasive.
2 We note that claim 6 depends from claim 5. Should there be further
prosecution in this application, the Examiner may wish to consider whether
or not claim 6 is indefinite based on its dependency from claim 5.
3
Appeal2014-000766
Application 13/073,627
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
independent claim 1, and claims 2-12, which depend therefrom as
anticipated by Bateman. Independent claim 17 similarly requires a "first
module configured to: ... construct one or more AFS mode commands."
Appeal Br. 24-25. Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner's
decision rejecting claim 17, and claims 18-20 which depend therefrom, as
anticipated by Bateman.
Claims 13-16
Appellant argues that "in his rejection the Examiner attempts to
equate the recited step of 'constructing AFS mode commands' to Bateman's
'sending flight control commands' (See, i-!(0023)). Appellant[] respectfully
point[s] out that constructing does NOT mean sending." Reply Br. 12
(emphasis omitted).
Although, the Specification does not explicitly define the claim term
"constructing," the Specification provides examples of processes that
constitute "constructing." See, e.g., Spec. if 61. Thus, in the context of
claim 13 and the Specification, Appellant is correct that "constructing" AFS
commands requires more than merely sending AFS commands.
Accordingly, Appellant's argument is persuasive.
We do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting independent
claim 13, and claims 14-16, which depend therefrom, as anticipated by
Bateman.
Rejection III
Appellant does not contest this rejection in the Appeal Brief. See
Appeal Br. 8. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (b)(2), lacking a
showing of good cause, we do not consider the arguments raised in the
Reply Brief which are not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer.
4
Appeal2014-000766
Application 13/073,627
We summarily sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Jourdan.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 15 as indefinite is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 as anticipated by Bateman is
REVERSED.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Jourdan is
AFFIRMED.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
msc
5