Ex Parte Whitlow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 7, 2016

13007178 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/007, 178
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
01114/2011
07111/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Whitlow
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.
H0028429 (002.2593) 6088
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2016 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 STEPHEN WHITLOW, MICHAEL CHRISTIAN DORNEICH,
WILLIAM ROGERS, CHRIS HAMBLIN, CLAUDIA KEINRATH, and
THEA L. FEYEREISEN
Appeal2014-009622
Application 13/007, 178
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 13-16, and 18-20, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 4, 5, 9-12, and 17 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Honeywell International,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009622
Application 13/007, 178
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to
parsing and prioritizing datalink messages received in an aircraft cockpit.
Spec. i12. 2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitations emphasized):
1. A method for prioritizing incoming datalink messages,
comprising the steps of:
receiving a datalink message in an aircraft;
parsing the received datalink message into individual
information elements;
extracting the individual information elements to
populate parameters;
comparing the parameters to aircraft and flight
information;
assessing the relevance of the received datalink message
from the comparisons;
estimating both current and future workload level of a
pilot; and
categorizing the received datalink message into one of a
plurality of playback priority categories, based on the assessed
relevance of the received datalink message and additionally on
the estimated current and future workload level of the pilot.
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Jan. 10, 2014 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Mar. 18, 2014 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed July 14, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply Brief
filed Sept. 9, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and, the original Specification filed
Jan. 14, 2011 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-009622
Application 13/007, 178
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guilley (US 2010/0161157 Al;
published June 24, 2010) and Domeich (US 2006/0029198 Al; published
Feb. 9, 2006). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guilley, Domeich, and Korkosz (US 6,262,659 Bl;
July 17, 2001 ). Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1 and 13
on several grounds. See App. Br. 10-15; Reply 4--9. Specifically,
Appellants argue the Examiner's interpretation of the term "datalink
messages" as "any type of message to aircraft flight management" is
unreasonable. Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants also argue, even if it were
assumed arguendo that the alert messages of Guilley could somehow be
interpreted as datalink messages, Guilley does not teach or suggest the
limitations "parsing the received datalink message into individual
information elements," "extracting the individual information elements to
populate parameters," and "comparing the parameters to aircraft and flight
information," as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claim 13. 3
Reply Br. 5-7.
3 Because we find these arguments to be dispositive of the Appeal, we need
not, and do not, address other arguments raised by Appellants.
3
Appeal2014-009622
Application 13/007, 178
The Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of "datalink
message is communication of any type of message to aircraft flight
management system." Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds the alerts
transmitted by the external systems 2 of Guilley are interpreted as datalink
messages. Ans. 6-7 (citing Guilley Fig. 1, elements 2, 3, 4; i-fi-174--78).
The Examiner further finds Guilley teaches or suggests the remaining
disputed limitations identified above because Guilley teaches the module for
managing alerts performs an interpretation of the data received into
meaningful data, the alert passes through a filtering function to determine a
level of seriousness of the alert, and managing the alerts makes it possible to
sort and update the list of alerts which indicates there is a comparison
involved. Id. at 7-8 (citing Guilley i-fi-1 78-80).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred.
Even if we were to agree with the Examiner's interpretation of "datalink
messages," for the reasons argued by Appellants, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding Guilley teaches or suggests the limitations
"parsing the received datalink message into individual information
elements," "extracting the individual information elements to populate
parameters," and "comparing the parameters to aircraft and flight
information," as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claim 13. See
Reply Br. 5-7. For example, we agree with Appellants' argument that
Guilley's teaching of converting data into meaningful data that can be used
by a processor does not teach or suggest "parsing the received datalink
message into individual information elements." Id. at 6. We also agree with
Appellants' argument that Guilley' s teaching of filtering alerts to determine
a level of seriousness of the alert does not teach or suggest "a data
4
Appeal2014-009622
Application 13/007, 178
conversion process that relies on extracting individual information elements,
let alone doing so to populate parameters." Id. at 6-7. We further agree
with Appellants' argument that Guilley' s teaching of sorting alerts does not
teach or suggest "comparing parameters that were populated by extracting
individual information elements of a parsed datalink message" with aircraft
and flight information, as set forth in claims 1 and 13. Id. at 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1
and 13 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination
of Guilley and Domeich. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2, 3, 6-8, 14--16, and 18-20, which depend variously from clams 1
and 13.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 13-16, and
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5