Judd, Thomas D. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2020

12888499 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2020)

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.
12/888,499 09/23/2010 Thomas D. Judd H0027310-5435 4550
89953 7590 04/15/2020
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 249
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
EVANS, GARRETT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2020 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):
docket@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS D. JUDD, VICKI JUDY,
BARRY LOCKE, and STEVE SCHEU

Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499
Technology Center 3600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal.2 Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We refer to the Specification filed Sept. 23, 2010, and published Mar. 29,
2012 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed Sept. 7, 2018 (“Final Act.”);
the Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 21, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s
Answer, mailed May 9, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed June 25, 2019. This appeal relates to Appeal 2016-002363 (previously
decided on Oct. 20, 2017) in which we affirmed the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1–20. Dec. 6.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

2
We affirm.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method and system for managing non-integrated Controller Pilot Data Link
Communications (CPDLC) systems on an aircraft. Spec. ¶ 4.
Figure 1, discussed and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed invention:

Figure 1 illustrates system (100) including HMI (130) controlling user
access to FANS CPDLC application (114) in executing on first computing
system (110) and to ATN CPDLC application (124) executing in second
computing system (120). Spec. ¶ 14.

37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Honeywell International Inc. as the
real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

3
As depicted in Figure 1 above, Human Machine Interface (HMI)
device (130) provides user access to first computing system (110) executing
Future Navigation Air Systems (FANS) CPDLC application (114). Id. ¶¶ 5,
14. HMI device (130) separately provides the user access to second
computing system (120) executing Aeronautical Telecommunication
Network (ATN) CPDLC application (124) through Manager Function (134),
which prevents user access to ATN CPDLC application (124) when the user
is accessing FANS CPDLC application (114), and vice versa. Id. ¶¶ 5, 14–
16.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for implementing a FANS/ATN CPDLC
solution, the system comprising:
a first computing system executing a first CPDLC
application on a first processor;
a second computing system executing a second CPDLC
application separately from the first CPDLC application on a
second processor, wherein the first computing system is not
integrated with the second computing system in that the first
processor and the second processor are separate processors
and do not share a memory;
at least one Human Machine Interface (HMI) display
coupled to the first computing system and the second
computing system; and
a manager function that determines which of the first
computing system and the second computing system is
accessible to a user through the HMI;
wherein the manager function prevents communication
with the first CPDLC application by the user when the second
CPDLC application is in communication with the user, until a
logon and CPDLC communications associated with the second
CPDLC application is terminated, and prevents communication
with the second CPD LC application by the user when the first
Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

4
CPD LC application is in communication with the user, until a
logon and CPDLC communications associated with the first
CPDLC application is terminated.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Sandell’733 WO 2007/064733 A1 Jun. 07, 2007
Corbefin US 2008/0098307 A1 Apr. 24, 2008
Lorido US 2008/0163093 A1 July 3, 2008
Sandell’602 US 7,495,602 B2 Feb. 24, 2009

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as follows:
1. Claims 1–9 and 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sandell (“Sandell’602”),
Corbefin, and Sandell (“Sandell’733”). Final Act. 2–9.
2. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sandell’602, Corbefin,
Sandell’733, and Lorido. Final Act. 9–10.
3. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6–14, and the Reply Brief, pages 1–6.4 We are

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

5
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2–12; Ans. 3–7. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of Sandell’602, Corbefin, and Sandell’733 teaches or suggests a first
computing system executing CPLD ATN applications separately from a
second computing system executing CPLD FANS applications, and do not
share memory, as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. In
particular, Appellant argues Sandell’602 discloses a dual stack architecture
of a single ATC operator interface communication system (100) wherein
ATN and FANS application components (104, 106, 108) are accessible via a
common HMI (102), and not separate computing systems. Id. at 7–8
(quoting Sandell’602, 3:13–19, Fig. 1). According to Appellant, while
Sandell’602 discloses which components of a software suite that the HMI
user has access to, it does not teach that the HMI user has access to a first
and second computing systems. Id. at 8.
Further, Appellant argues that there is insufficient rationale to modify
Sandell’602 with Corbefin to segregate execution of the ATN applications
(104) onto a different processor and memory for executing the FANS
applications (106/108). Id. at 9–10. According to Appellant, because
Corbefin indicates that processing different applications on separate
computing systems can be complex and problematic, the Examiner’s

made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014).
Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

6
rationale of reducing cost and space by sharing the HMI among multiple
CPDLC applications is insufficient for the proposed combination as
Corbefin only tolerates the complex configuration because of the need for
separate secured avionics resources. Id. at 9–10 (citing Corbefin ¶¶ 2, 3, 9).
Additionally, Applicant argues that Sandell’602 only functions using either
the ATN applications or the FANS applications, but not both at any one time.
Id. at 10–11. Therefore, Appellant submits that “the duplication of processor
and memory hardware, and the corresponding need for power and physical
space to support that duplicate hardware in a resource constrained
environment such as aircraft, would discourage one skilled in the art to make
such a modification to the communication system 100 of Sandell’602.” Id.
at 11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. Sandell’602 discloses communication system (100) including HMI
(102) bi-directionally linked to ATN application components (104), and
FANS application components (106, 108). Sandell’602 3:10–21. According
to Sandell’602, the ATN applications component (104) includes a Context
Management Application (CMA) component (128), a first Automatic
Dependent Surveillance (ADS) component (130), and a first Controller/Pilot
Data Link Communication (CPDLC) component (132). Id. at 3:21–25.
Further, according to Sandell’602, the first FANS applications component
(106) includes a second ADS component 134 and a second CPDLC
component (136). Id. at 3:41–43. Furthermore, according to Sandell’602,
the second FANS application component (108) includes an Air Traffic
Services (ATS) Facilities Notification, or AFN, component (138). Id. at
3:46–48. Additionally, Sandell’602 refers to the ATN and FANS
Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

7
application components as different air traffic control technologies
implemented on different systems through a single operator interface. Id. at
1:46–48, 2:55–56.
Besides the naked allegation that Sandell’602’s components (104,
106, 108) are software application components accessible via the HMI,
Appellant has not provided any substantial analysis of the cited portions of
Sandell’602 or any other evidence to refute the Examiner’s finding that the
disclosed FANS and ATN application components are executing separately
on different processing systems. Final Act. 2–4; Answer 4. Although
Sandell’602 does not explicitly disclose the disputed limitations, we agree
with the Examiner that Corbefin’s explicit teaching of a first processor (120)
executing a first application in an unsecure area separately from a second
processor (130) executing a second application in a secure area makes up for
that deficiency. Final Act. 4 (citing Corbefin, Fig. 1). We do not agree with
Appellant that the Examiner’s rationale of reducing cost and space by
sharing the HMI among multiple CPDLC applications is insufficient for the
proposed combination in light of Corbefin’s disclosure that such
configuration is complex and problematic. As admitted by Appellant,
despite the noted challenges, Corbefin suggests utilizing the suggested
configuration if only to separate secured avionics resources. Thus,
Corbefin’s discussion of possible challenges associated with running
software components separately on different computing systems does not
teach away from such implementation, and would not render Sandell’602
unsuitable for its intended purpose.5

5 The argument that the proposed combination of references would render
one of the references unsuitable for its intended purpose, or would change its
Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

8
Further, besides merely alleging that Sandell’602 only functions using
either the ATN applications or the FANS applications, but not both at any
one time, Appellant has not presented any analysis of the reference or any
other evidence to substantiate this naked allegation. We find the Examiner’s
proposed combination of the cited teachings of Sandell’602, Corbefin, and
Sandell’733 is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, the ordinarily skilled
artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would be
able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a
puzzle to predictably result in a communication system with an HMI for
regulating user access to software components running on separate
computing devices. Id. at 420–21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated
that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the

principle of operation, is a teaching away argument. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (The court concluded that in effect, “French
teaches away from the board’s proposed modification” because “if the
French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable
for its intended purpose.”). “If references taken in combination would
produce a ‘seemingly inoperative device,’ . . . such references teach away
from the combination and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie
case of obviousness.” McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339,
1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A] reference teaches away from a
combination when using it in that combination would produce an inoperative
result,” but the obviousness analysis must account for “modifications that
one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art.”).
Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

9
Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the
purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418). Consequently, we are satisfied that, on the record before us, the
Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combination of Sandell’602, Corbefin, and Sandell’733 renders claim 1
unpatentable. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2–20, Appellant has not presented
separate patentability arguments or reiterated substantially the same
arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1. As
such, claims 2–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
We likewise affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims
1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–20 103(a)
Sandell’602,
Corbefin,
Sandell’733
1–9, 11–
20
10 103(a)
Sandell’602,
Corbefin,
Sandell’733,
Lorido
10
Overall Outcome 1–20

Appeal 2019-005177
Application 12/888,499

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED