2020001898 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2021)

ROSEMOUNT AEROSPACE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 20, 2021

2020001898 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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. 14/279,691 05/16/2014 Michael James Haukom 75231US01 (U380473US) 1412 114172 7590 07/20/2021 Cantor Colburn LLP - Power Controls, Sensing Systems 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3207 EXAMINER PAULINO, LENIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2193 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/20/2021 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL JAMES HAUKOM and THOMAS JAY HORSAGER Appeal 2020-001898 Application 14/279,691 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, which are the only claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ROSEMOUNT AEROSPACE INC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001898 Application 14/279,691 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a tablet based airborne data loader. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for data loading with a tablet comprising: receiving, via a processor on the tablet, one or more software updates published by a ground station and storing the software updates on the tablet; establishing, via a processor on a tablet interface module, encrypted communications between the tablet and the tablet interface module of an aircraft, wherein a pairing of the tablet to the tablet interface module and the communications can only be initiated from the tablet interface module on the aircraft, and wherein the tablet interface module provides the tablet with an indication of the type of the aircraft and with the current version of the software on the aircraft; determining, via the processor on the tablet, if a software on the aircraft needs to be updated; based on determining that the software on the aircraft needs to be updated, transmitting, via the processor on the tablet, at least one of the one or more software updates to the tablet interface module for loading into the aircraft, the one or more software updates based on the type of the aircraft and the current version of the software; and monitoring, via the processor on the tablet, an installation process of the software updates in the aircraft via the tablet interface module. Appeal 2020-001898 Application 14/279,691 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Saugnac US 2013/0067450 A1 Mar. 14, 2013 Glowny US 5,805,897 Sept. 8, 1998 Mueller US 2014/0282467 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Krenz US 2014/0245285 A1 Aug. 28, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Saugnac, Glowny, Mueller, and Krenz. Final Act. 4. OPINION To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Saugnac, Glowny, Mueller, and Krenz for collectively teaching or suggesting the elements recited in the pending claims. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that the claims require that software updates are received on a tablet and published by the ground. Br. 5. Appellant argues that Saugnac, in contrast, does not teach the claimed requirement of receiving, via a processor on the tablet, one or more software updates published by a ground station and storing the software updates on the tablet. Id. We are not persuaded by this argument because we agree with the Examiner that Saugnac teaches a tablet (portable computer 235) that exchanges data with an aircraft. Ans. 4 (citing Saugnac, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 54, 55, 63, 64). A manufacturer publishes an update via a ground station 205, as shown Appeal 2020-001898 Application 14/279,691 4 in Saugnac Figure 2, which can be sent to tablet/portable computer 205, which exchanges data with the aircrafts 200. This teaches the disputed limitation of “receiving, via a processor on the tablet, one or more software updates published by a ground station and storing the software updates on the tablet,” as recited in claim 1. Appellant also argues that Krenz does not teach “the tablet interface module provides the tablet with an indication of the type of the aircraft and with the current version of the software on the aircraft.” Br. 5, 6. Appellant argues that the claims require providing information not to an installed component, but to a non-installed tablet, which Appellant argues is the opposite of what Krenz teaches (i.e., allegedly a flow of information from a module on the aircraft to another aircraft device.) Id. at 6. Appellants’ arguments do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, the connection infrastructure is via a tablet/portable computer 235 of Saugnac. Ans. 4. Krenz teaches an aircraft has onboard its computer information regarding the type of aircraft model and all current software configurations. Id.; Final Act. 8; Krenz ¶¶ 8, 9 (“stores information relating to the aircraft such as, for example, aircraft identifiers indicating, among other things, the aircraft model, and all current software configurations for each of the software loadable boxes.”). Thus, Appellant’s arguments regarding Krenz’s individual shortcomings in this regard (Br. 5, 6) are unavailing because the Examiner does not rely solely on Krenz for teaching providing software, but rather the cited prior art collectively. See Ans. 3–5. Appeal 2020-001898 Application 14/279,691 5 Finally, Appellant does not argue the Examiner’s rationale in combining the references, and we discern no error therein. In an obviousness analysis, prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and we “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). On this record, we find (and Appellant does not dispute) the Examiner has articulated ample “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. And 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 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). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2–10, which are not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejections of claims 1–10. Appeal 2020-001898 Application 14/279,691 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10 103 Saugnac, Glowny, Mueller, Krenz 1–10 Overall Outcome 103 Saugnac, Glowny, Mueller, Krenz 1–10 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED