Ex Parte Srinivasan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2018

13916638 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/916,638 06/13/2013
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
07/24/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Divya Swamp Giriyappa Srinivasan
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.
H0038650-5435 4293
EXAMINER
ISMAIL, MAHMOUD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 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 DIVY A SW ARUP GIRIY APP A SRINIVASAN and
THOMAS D. JUDD
Appeal2017-010463
Application 13/916,638
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010463
Application 13/916,638
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to systems and methods for providing air-
traffic-control-center data to aircraft. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 An avionics system, the avionics system
compnsmg:
a communication device configured to
communicate with a data center and an air traffic
control center; and
a processing unit configured to execute
machine readable instructions that cause the
processing unit to:
manage communications associated
with the flight of an aircraft, wherein the
communications are communicated through the
communication device with the data center;
distinguish identifying information
received through the communication device, wherein
the identifying information includes at least one of an
identifier for the air traffic control center and an
aeronautical telecommunications network address of
the air traffic control center; and
establish a communication session
with the air traffic control center using the identifying
information received through the communication
device.
2
Appeal2017-010463
Application 13/916,638
Werback
Bhogal
Fantappie
REFERENCES
US 2006/0167618 Al
US 2008/0045198 Al
EP 2 447 929 Al
REJECTIONS
July 27, 2006
Feb.21,2008
May 2, 2012
Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fantappie and Bhogal.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Fantappie, Bhogal, and Werback.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19, and 20-Unpatentable over Fantappie and Bhogal
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-10), we select claim 1 as
representative of claims 1-5, 7-17, 19, and 20, and decide the appeal of
these claims on the basis of claim I alone. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 2-5, 7-17, 19, and 20 fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Fantappie discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1, with, for example, VHF digital radio 28 on aircraft 2 corresponding
to the claimed communication device; communication management unit 31
on aircraft 2 corresponding to the claimed processing unit; ground station 3 5
corresponding to the claimed data center; and remote station 6
corresponding to the claimed air traffic control center. Final Act. 3 ( citing
Fantappie ,r 27, Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that Fantappie's
communication device receives "identifying information"-in the form of an
3
Appeal2017-010463
Application 13/916,638
"ATN Address"-which aircraft 2 uses to establish a connection with
remote station 6. Id. at 3--4 ( citing Fantappie ,r 78). 1
The Examiner also finds, however, that "Fantappie does not explicitly
mention distinguish identifying information received through the
communication device, wherein the identifying information includes at least
one of an identifier for the air traffic control center and an aeronautical
telecommunications network address of the air traffic control center." Id.
at 4. In the Answer the Examiner clarifies which limitation the Examiner
believes Fantappie does not teach, stating that "Fantappie does not explicitly
mention that the ATN address was of the air traffic control center [i.e.,
remote station 6]." Ans. 5. The Examiner therefore relies on Bhogal to
teach providing identifying information that includes at least one of an
identifier for the air traffic control center and an ATN address for the air
traffic control center:
[W]hen aircraft 26a flies into air space governed by A TC [ air
traffic control] center 24, aircraft 26a transmits (i.e., using two
way radio 17b) a first identifier (i.e., data identifying aircraft 26a)
to ATC center [24]. A copy of the text data, the voice command
(i.e., audio data), and a second identifier for the ATC center 24
(identifier for the air traffic control center) is transmitted via two
way radio 17 a ( communication device) to aircraft 26a. The
second identifier comprises a unique identification tag for ATC
center 24 (e.g., a squawk identifier) so that aircraft 26a may
verify which ATC center is issuing the command.
Final Act. 4 ( citing Bhogal ,r 46) ( emphasis omitted). The Examiner
determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
Fantappie's system with Bhogal's teaching to provide an address that
1 "ATN" stands for "aeronautical telecommunications network." Spec. ,r 1.
4
Appeal2017-010463
Application 13/916,638
specifically identifies an air traffic control center, so that an aircraft can
"verify which ATC center" the aircraft is communicating with. Id.
Appellants raise several arguments in response to this rejection. First,
Appellants argue that it is inconsistent for the Examiner to find that
Fantappie teaches "establishing a communication session with the air traffic
control center using the identifying information received through the
communication device," but also to find that Fantappie does not teach
"distinguish[ing] identifying information received through the
communication device, wherein the identifying information includes at least
one of an identifier for the air traffic control center and an aeronautical
telecommunication network address of the air traffic control center." App.
Br. 6 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We disagree that these two findings are inconsistent. As the Examiner
finds, Fantappie teaches "identifying information" for remote station 6--an
ATN address-that an aircraft uses to establish communications with remote
station 6. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Fantappie ,r 78); see Fantappie ,r 77
("ground station 35 ... broadcasts ... the air-ground router ATN address,
owned by the ANSP, uni vocally [ sic, unequivocally] identifying the network
that the third party remote station 6 belongs to"). The Examiner notes,
however, that Fantappie does not "explicitly mention that the ATN address
was of the air traffic control center." Ans. 5. The Examiner therefore relies
only on Bhogal's teaching to provide identifying information that
specifically identifies an air traffic control center. Id. Thus, the Examiner
relies on Fantappie to teach providing identifying information, and on
Bhogal to teach the specific content of the identifying information, i.e.,
5
Appeal2017-010463
Application 13/916,638
identifying information that specifically identifies the air traffic control
center.
Appellants next argue that "[t]here is no teaching, or even a
suggestion, in Bhogal that the squawk identifier is used to establish a
communication session with the air traffic control center," because
Bhogal teaches that the squawk identifier is "provided by the air traffic
control center after communication has already been established between
the aircraft and air traffic control center." App. Br. 8. This argument is
misplaced, however, because the Examiner relies on Fantappie, not Bhogal,
to teach establishing communications with the received identifying
information. Ans. 4; see In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.").
Appellants further argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined Fantappie and Bhogal because "[t]he system in Fantappie
discusses a communication system using digital data link technology and
Bhogal discusses a communication system based on voice communications."
App. Br. 8 ( citing Fantappie ,r 1; Bhogal ,r 1 ). Appellants specifically
contend that "a squawk identifier is unique to voice communications and
would not be used to establish a communication session for the digital data
link described in Fantappie." Id. at 9. But, again, Bhogal is relied on for the
content of the identifying information provided, and not for the technical
means by which that information is provided. "The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference ... [ r ]ather, the test
6
Appeal2017-010463
Application 13/916,638
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) ( citations omitted).
Finally, Appellants argue-for the first time in the Reply Brief-that
Fantappie's remote station 6 is not an air traffic control center. Reply Br. 2.
But Appellants do not explain why remote station 6 is not an air traffic
control center, particularly in light of Fantappie's teaching that remote
station 6 sends and receives "ATC" (air traffic control) messages. Fantappie
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Appellants do not
apprise us of error in the Examiner's determination that the subject matter of
claim 1 would have been obvious. We therefore sustain the rejection of
claim 1, as well as claims 2-5, 7-17, 19, and 20, as unpatentable over
Fantappie and Bhogal.
Claims 6 and 18-Unpatentable over Fantappie, Bhogal, and Werback
Appellants rely on its previously made and rejected arguments in
support of the patentability of claims 6 and 18. App. Br. 10. Therefore, for
the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6
and 18 as unpatentable over Fantappie, Bhogal, and Werback.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
7
Appeal2017-010463
Application 13/916,638
AFFIRMED
8