Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

13665806 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
13/665,806 10/31/2012 Jonathan Matthew Wong H0035420 (002.2694) 8436
89955 7590 08/24/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
GEBREMICHAEL, BRUK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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
docketing @LKGlobal.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN MATTHEW WONG and
JEFFREY SIMON
Appeal 2016-006496
Application 13/665,806
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. WOODS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jonathan Matthew Wong and Jeffrey Simon (“Appellants”) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18.
Br. 10. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-006496
Application 13/665,806
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to “methods and systems for flight
training and evaluation that are integrated with a handheld and portable
device.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Br. 15—17
(App. A). We reproduce claim 1, below, with emphasis added to particular
limitations at issue in this appeal.
1. A method for evaluating maneuvers performed by an
aircraft, comprising:
performing steps on one or more processors, the steps
comprising:
setting a mode of a handheld device to a training mode;
and
when in the training mode,
tracking realtime flight data that indicates realtime
conditions of the aircraft while in flight;
retrieving standards data based on a maneuver
type associated with the realtime flight data; and
evaluating the realtime flight data based on the
standards data.
Br. 15 (App. A).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Shavit (US 2011/0246002 Al, published Oct. 6, 2011). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal 2016-006496
Application 13/665,806
ANALYSIS
Appellants contest the rejection of claims 1—18 collectively. See
Br. 11—13. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim
1 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection, with
claims 2—18 standing or falling with claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Shavit teaches “a method
for evaluating maneuvers performed by an aircraft.” Final Act. 3 (citing
Shavit 12). In particular, the Examiner finds that Shavit discloses a
smartphone (e.g., iPhone), which is carried onboard an aircraft during flight,
for tracking flight data from the aircraft in real time. See id. at 3^4 (citing in
part Shavit 145); Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that Shavit’s smartphone,
when used for tracking real-time flight data, satisfies the claimed “training
mode.” See Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 14 (“[Shavit’s] smartphone
comprises at least two modes, for example, (i) a mode related to tracking
flight data of an aircraft in real-time, and (ii) a mode related to basic phone
functions.”).
The Examiner acknowledges, “Shavit does not explicitly describe the
smartphone retrieving standards data based on a maneuver type associated
with the realtime flight data; and evaluating the realtime flight data based on
the standards data.” Final Act. 4 (emphases added). The Examiner explains,
however, that Shavit’s smartphone sends real-time flight data (e.g., altitude,
airspeed) to a server, where a flight analyzer evaluates the flight data
according to standards data (e.g., published flight procedures, set of rules).
Id. (citing Shavit || 46, 50, 52, 64, 65, 70). Based on these teachings, the
Examiner reasons that
3
Appeal 2016-006496
Application 13/665,806
it would have been obvious ... to modify Shavit’s system by . .
. incorporating one or more relevant hardware and/or software
modules that comprise flight procedures . . . into the
smartphone ... to enable the smartphone ... to evaluate the
various maneuvers or operations the user/pilot is making based
on one or more rules and relevant flight procedures . . . thereby
making the system more efficient to the user by providing the
user with additional option(s) that provides immediate feedback
regarding his/her performance.
Id. at 4—5.
In contesting the rejection, Appellants argue that it would not have
been obvious to modify Shavit as the Examiner proposes. See Br. 11
(“Appellants respectfully disagree”). In support of this argument,
Appellants present the following sub-arguments, which we address
separately, below.
First, Appellants argue that “[Shavif s] ground-based server includes
an automatic flight analyzer for processing the data . . . [and] any evaluation
in Shavit is not performed in realtime, rather it is performed after a
maneuver has been performed and offsite.” Br. 11 (citing Shavit || 7, 45,
46, 64).
Even if true, Appellants’ first argument is unavailing as it is not
responsive to the rejection before us. The Examiner does not reject the
claims as being anticipated by Shavit. See Final Act. 3. In particular, the
Examiner does not rely on Shavit for disclosing its evaluation as being
performed on the airplane, rather than a remote server, as Appellants’
argument presumes. Rather, the Examiner acknowledges that Shavif s
“smartphone sends [a] plurality of flight data in real-time to a server . . .
wherein a flight analyzer evaluates the various flight data.” Id. at 4 (citing
Shavit || 46, 50, 52) (emphasis added). To satisfy the claimed limitation,
4
Appeal 2016-006496
Application 13/665,806
the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Shavit’s
smartphone by, among other things, incorporating the relevant software
modules that comprise flight procedures to enable the smartphone to
evaluate the various maneuvers based on relevant flight procedures to make
the system more efficient. See id. at 4—5.
Second, Appellants argue, “Shavit fails to even suggest a handheld
device that is set to operate in a training mode and that performs the
processing itself.” Br. 12.
Appellants’ second argument is not persuasive. We first note that
Shavit discloses a “handheld device” through its disclosure of an “airborne
data logger” in the form of a smartphone that is carried onboard the aircraft
during flight (Shavit 145), and that the smartphone/data logger sends data
(e.g., altitude) to a ground-based server (id. 146). Furthermore, even if
Shavit’s smartphone does not “perform[] the processing itself’ (Br. 12),
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the rejection. As discussed above,
the Examiner acknowledges that Shavit’s server—via its flight analyzer,
rather than through its smartphone—evaluates the various flight data. See
Final Act. 4. To satisfy the claimed limitation, the Examiner proposes to
modify Shavit’s smartphone to enable it to “evaluate the various maneuvers .
. . thereby making the system more efficient.” Id. at 5.
Third, Appellants assert, “one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that server software and hardware can’t simply be moved to a
hand-held device such as a smart phone and work properly.” Br. 12.
Appellants’ third argument is not persuasive, as it is unsupported by
the record. Id. at 12. Appellants cite to no evidence and provide no
5
Appeal 2016-006496
Application 13/665,806
persuasive technical reasoning to support its assertion that the proposed
combination would fail to work properly. See id.
Fourth, Appellants argue, “Shavit fails to disclose or even suggest
with sufficient enabling detail how to replace the server system with
handheld software on a handheld device.” Id.
Appellants’ fourth argument is also unavailing. First, the Examiner
does not rely on Shavit for teaching “how to replace the server system with
handheld software on a handheld device.” Br. 12; see also Ans. 18 (“the
modification does not involve incorporating a server into the smartphone”).
Second, and as explained correctly by the Examiner, “the artisan (one of
ordinary skill in the art) [achieves] the modification based on a routine skill
in the art.” Ans. 18. As discussed supra, Appellants present no evidence to
support its assertion that the proposed modification would fail to work
properly or that a skilled artisan would not have found obvious the proposed
modification through routine skill in the art. See Br. 12.
Fifth and finally, Appellants also argue, “it would not be obvious to
modify the server system of Shavit to be a mode based system.” Id. at 13
(emphasis added).
Appellants’ fifth argument is not persuasive, as it is not responsive to
the rejection. In particular, the Examiner does not propose to modify
Shavit’s server system “to be a mode based system,” whatever that may be.
See id.', see also Ans. 18 (“the modification does not involve . . . modifying
the server to be a mode based system”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, and claims 2—18, which fall with claim 1, and sustain the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
6
Appeal 2016-006496
Application 13/665,806
Shavit. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Shavit 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7