HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2021

2021003006 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2021)

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.
16/043,854 07/24/2018 Sripathi Ramachandra 00194-0378-00000 3682
154879 7590 10/18/2021
Honeywell/Bookoff
Intellectual Property Services Group
855 S. Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
CODUROGLU, JALAL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
usptomail@bomcip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SRIPATHI RAMACHANDRA, MARK PEARSON,
GREG CARLUCCI, and RICHARD SNYDER

Appeal 2020-003006
Application 16/043,854
Technology Center 3600

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge

Opinion Concurring filed by CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant, Honeywell International Inc.,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–8, 12–18,
and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant requested
an oral hearing on April 1, 2021, and a hearing was scheduled for
September 27, 2021. However, on August 23, 2021, Appellant filed an
express waiver of hearing, and thus no hearing was held.
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies itself as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-003006
Application 16/043,854

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
Appellant’s “disclosure generally relates to the field of aircraft display
systems” and more specifically “relates to an aircraft display system via
which stored flight data may be searched with a custom search query.”
Spec. ¶1.
The Claims
According to the Final Action (entered June 22, 2020), claims 1–20
were rejected. Final Act. 1. However, four of these claims are not before
us. First, it appears the Examiner overlooked that, in Appellant’s May 23,
2020, response, Appellant cancelled claims 9 and 19, which was Appellant’s
right to. We proceed as if those claims are cancelled, consistent with
Appellant’s Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 38–39.
Second, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 10 and 11. Ans. 3.
Thus, claims 1–8, 12–18, and 20 are before us. Claim 1 is illustrative
and reproduced below.
1. An aircraft display system, comprising:
a memory module configured to store flight plan
information;
a receiver module configured to receive updated flight
plan information;
a display module;
a user interface module configured to receive a custom
search query, the custom search query comprising at least one of
an aircraft parameter condition and an environmental parameter
condition, wherein the custom search query includes a Boolean
operator; and
a processor module operably connected to the memory
module, the receiver module, the display module, and the user
Appeal 2020-003006
Application 16/043,854

3
interface module, the processor module configured to update
flight plan information stored in the memory module with
updated flight plan information received by the receiver and,
when a custom search query is received at the user interface
module, the processor module is further configured to search the
stored flight plan information for flight plan information
comprising aircraft parameters or environmental parameters that
satisfy the aircraft parameter condition or environmental
parameter condition of the custom search query and to cause the
display module to display instances of the flight plan information
containing the aircraft parameters or environmental parameters
that satisfy the aircraft parameter condition or the environmental
parameter condition of the custom search query.
Appeal Br. 36.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1–8, 12–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over US 9,335,917 B2, issued May 10, 2016,
(“Dostal”) and US 9,008,865 B2, issued Apr. 14, 2015, (“Joseph”). Final
Act. 5.
DISCUSSION
Dostal discloses “an avionics display system and method for
providing an enhanced HMI (Human Machine Interface) mechanism
including continuous, sequential, and time-based navigation capabilities.”
Dostal 1:6–10. The Examiner found that Dostal discloses the subject matter
of claim 1 but “is silent on the ‘Boolean operator’.” Final Act. 6.
Joseph discloses “a device for management, processing and control of
the parameters used on board aircraft, commonly called avionic parameters
or flight parameters.” Joseph 1:9–11. The Examiner found that Joseph
teaches “wherein the custom search query includes a Boolean operator,” as
Appeal 2020-003006
Application 16/043,854

4
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner’s finding
is based on the following disclosure from Joseph:
Tab 338 here comprises several fields that can be edited,
including, a more or less detailed description 340 of the
parameter; the type 342 of the parameter (for example complete,
real, Boolean or character chain); the unit of value 344 for the
measurement parameters (for example Kg, m/s or bar); the sign
indication 346 for the digital values of the parameter; the
resolution 348 of the parameter as well as the operating value
range of the parameter (not shown); the specification 350 of the
parameter; the description of the true and false states for
parameters of Boolean type; and other pertinent information
items depending on the parameter concerned.
Joseph 10:8–24; see also Final Act. 6–7 (quoting the same but not providing
a citation). The Examiner further found “Joseph teaches that these features
are useful in order to standardize and harmonize the identification of
parameters of aerodynamic vehicles.” Final Act. 7 (no citation provided).
Although no citation is provided, the Examiner appears to be referring to
column 2, lines 36 through 38, of Joseph, which provide: “In this way the
invention makes it possible to standardize and harmonize the identification
of parameters of aerodynamic vehicles.” Joseph 2:36–38.
The Examiner concluded: “Before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Joseph with the
system disclosed by Dostal in order to standardize and harmonize the
identification of parameters of aerodynamic vehicles.” Final Act. 7.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie rejection of claim 1.
It is not clear from the Examiner’s rejection what the proposed modified
system would look like or how it would operate, let alone how it would
satisfy all the claim limitations. In particular, it is not clear how the
Appeal 2020-003006
Application 16/043,854

5
proposed modification would include “a custom search query [that] includes
a Boolean operator,” as recited in claim 1. For the general “custom search
query” limitation, the Examiner identifies Dostal’s statements that “inertial
reference system 118 provides processor 112 with information describing
various flight parameters of the host aircraft (e.g., position, orientation,
velocity, etc.) as monitored by a number of motion sensors (e.g.,
accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc.) deployed onboard the aircraft” and “the
navigation system 104 is configured to obtain one or more navigational
parameters associated with operation of the aircraft.” Final Act. 6 (quoting
Dostal 5:35–50, 6:34–36). But the Examiner does not explain how the
inertial reference system and/or navigation system of Dostal would have
been modified so as to include a Boolean operator as part of a custom search
query.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as well as that of
independent claim 12, which also recites “wherein the custom search query
includes a Boolean operator.” Appeal Br. 38. The remaining claims all
depend ultimately from either claim 1 or claim 12. Id. at 36–40. We reverse
their rejection as well. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(“Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent
claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).

Appeal 2020-003006
Application 16/043,854

6
SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 12–
18, 20
103 Dostal, Joseph 1–8, 12–
18, 20

REVERSED

Appeal 2020-003006
Application 16/043,854

7
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring

I agree with the majority that the Examiner’s rejection lacks sufficient
detailed analysis regarding implementation of the proposed modification.
Nevertheless, I write separately to express skepticism that Appellant
has disclosed and claimed a patentable invention. Updating a flight plan
inflight is a routine matter that has been performed manually by aviators for
decades. See e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6B (discussing history and
use of manual slide rule calculators used in aviation since before World
War II). Appellant’s invention, as well as those of the prior art cited by the
Examiner, merely uses modern computer calculating and display technology
to automate and simplify this well-known and well-understood manual task.
A person of ordinary skill in the art knows how to query a computer
system for information. Some computer applications use drop down menus,
some use various point and click techniques, and other applications require
the operator to input alpha-numeric text into a query box using either a
keyboard or a voice recognition controller. Appellant breaks no new ground
in techniques for eliciting information from computer memory.
A person of ordinary skill in the art knows the various elements and
aspects of flight planning. Each type of aircraft has a set of machine
parameters that come into play such as gross weight at different fuel loads,
engine thrust and fuel consumption which, in turn, interacts with
performance aspects of cruise altitude and velocity. Practitioners are also
familiar with environmental factors that influence execution of a flight plan,
such as wind. Practitioners know that head winds and tail winds can affect
aircraft ground speed and, therefore, the time that it will arrive at its
destination and how much fuel it will consume enroute. Practitioners also
Appeal 2020-003006
Application 16/043,854

8
know that actual environmental factors encountered inflight, such as wind at
cruise altitude, can deviate from the forecast environmental factor that was
used to prepare a flight plan before takeoff, hence the need to periodically
update the flight plan inflight.
Practitioners are familiar with: (1) the types of data that is used in
making flight planning calculations; and (2) the various sources where such
data may be obtained. Storing such data in computer memory requires no
more than ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the prior art cited by the
Examiner.
This case boils down to querying a computer for information and a
means to display the result of such query. I see nothing that is particularly
innovative when it comes to the particular features of Appellant’s user
interface. Querying a computer with alphanumeric text together with
Boolean operators is hardly new.
Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that the Examiner’s rejection
should have been articulated with greater detail and greater clarity.
Appellant is reminded that the Board enters a new ground of rejection at its
discretion, and no inference should be drawn from a failure to exercise that
discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b); see also MPEP § 1213.02. Otherwise,
I concur in the decision reached by the majority.