Ex Parte Shamasundar et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

14721576 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/721,576 05/26/2015
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
06/28/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raghu Shamasundar
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.
H0047301-5435 2296
EXAMINER
ALIZADA, OMEED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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
docket@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAGHU SHAMASUNDAR,
SUNDARESH SEETHAHALLY KRISHNAMURTHY,
and THOMAS D. JUDD
Appeal 2018-004 726
Application 14/721,576 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN D. HAMANN, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004 726
Application 14/721,576
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a display device on an
aircraft, for communicating flight information to a pilot. Spec. ,r,r 1-2,
Abstract. Specifically, the invention relates to improving the manner in
which late-breaking flight information messages (such as those occurring
after a flight plan already had been created) are conveyed and taken into
account in the onboard display, and how such late-breaking flight
information messages may affect "uplink" messages to the pilot. Spec.
,r,r 2-3.
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. An avionics display system comprising:
a display device, wherein the display device is
configured to display a communication message; and
a processing device configured to:
determine whether a flight information message
affects the communication message; and
when the communication message is affected by
the flight information message, modify the displayed
appearance of the communication message on the display
device to display a modified communication message and
provide an indication with the modified communication
message to indicate that the communication message is
affected by the flight information message;
wherein the display device is communicatively
coupled to the processing device and located onboard an
aircraft.
App. Br. 21 (Claims App.) ( emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2018-004 726
Application 14/721,576
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Murray et al. (US 8,723,686 Bl; iss. May 13, 2014)
("Murray"). Final Act. 4--8; Ans. 2--4.
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Murray and Frank et al. (US 8,244,418 B 1; iss. Aug. 14,
2012) ("Frank"). Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejection from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis.
Rejection of Claim 1 under
35 US.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Murray
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Murray teaches or
suggests a "processing device" configured to perform the specific steps
recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue the prior art lacks three
elements of the recited processor configuration: (i) to "modify the displayed
appearance" of the communication message; (ii) to "indicate that the
communication message is affected by the flight information message;" and
(iii) to perform the foregoing modification and indication "when the
communication message is affected by the flight information message."
3
Appeal 2018-004 726
Application 14/721,576
App. Br. 6-10. We, however, agree with the Examiner's findings, and
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error.
As the Examiner finds, Murray teaches a method of managing an
aircraft flight path, including on-board flight deck displays and an "alert"
system which help make flight path corrections. Ans. 3; Murray, Abstract,
1 :50-2:25. An example of the flight deck displays in Murray is shown in
Figure 2A, reproduced below.
FIGURE 2A
Figure 2A is a flight deck display with four quadrants. An alert
"DEST APT CLOSED" is displayed in the upper left quadrant. Murray,
6:27-39. When the pilot "select[s] the alert," another alert is displayed in
the upper right quadrant indicating a weather alert ("ALERT FROM WX
DSS" and that the "DESTINATION AIRPORT [is] CLOSED" and the
"ALTERNATE AIRPORT RUNWAY [is] CLOSED." Id. Alternate
airports are determined based on predetermined rules, and "suggested
reroutes" are displayed, also in the upper right quadrant. Id. at 6:28-39.
4
Appeal 2018-004 726
Application 14/721,576
Selecting "MORE DETAILS" in the upper right quadrant may "change [the
display] to the display illustrated in Figure 2B," which is illustrated below.
Id. at 6:40-59.
IIJ}i, Nn TAKEOFf
PARKIEl!ER e~~KE ON
DEST /\PT cl.(),ED C
ALI Al'T C.lOSEO IJ (PPOS) -> 5It,t,,N ·> KORO RWV 32R
(PPOS) -> JOT -> Kl"8:JW flW'I 31R
REROUTE }USTUICAHOO
A U mt ELEC
SER~ !CE OOOl!S ,,t, •c Dus t •C E$S ous AC ll!JS l
·~CfI:; if:i if i
FIGURE 2B
Figure 2B illustrates another four-quadrant flight display. The upper
right quadrant "gives the pilot the option to load the suggested reroutes into
the flight computer," and also displays messages showing the 'justification
(or the reasons) of choosing [each ofJ the displayed suggested routes." Id. at
6:60-64.
As the Examiner finds, any of the various flight-related messages on
the original display (including but not limited to original flight plan or
destination) teach or suggest claim 1 's element of a "communication
message," which is broadly defined in Appellants' Specification as virtually
any communication to the plane or relating to the flight. Ans. 2-4; Spec.
,r,r 13, 29, 31. As shown in Figures 2A and 2B above, "flight information
5
Appeal 2018-004 726
Application 14/721,576
message[ s ]," such as weather alerts and airport closures, "modify the
displayed appearance of the communication message" in the display. A
"modified communication message," such as an alternate route or flight
plan, indicates that the "communication message ... is affected by the flight
information message," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3--4. And, as recited in
the claim, these modifications in Murray occur "when the communication
message [ e.g., flight information such as flight plan, destination airport,
status, or route] is affected by the flight information message [e.g., an
alert]." Id.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us the Examiner
erred. We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim
1.
Rejections of Remaining Claims
under 35 USC§ 103
Appellants group claims 2-7 and 9-11 with claim 1 for argument.
App. Br. 6; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed
above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of those claims.
As to the remaining claims 8 and 12-20, all of which recite limitations
commensurate in scope to the disputed limitations of claim 1, Appellants
argue the Examiner erred for the same reasons as claim 1 and that additional
references cited do not cure the deficiencies of the Examiner's error. App.
Br. 10-20; Reply Br. 3. For the same reasons discussed above, we are not
persuaded of error, and we sustain the rejections of these claims.
6
Appeal 2018-004 726
Application 14/721,576
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7