THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2020002212 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
15/259,123 09/08/2016 Pawel Kajak 16-1232-US-NP (800-164) 9288
107112 7590 03/02/2021
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
STIVALETTI, MATHEUS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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):
docket@splglaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte PAWEL KAJAK

____________

Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,1231
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies “The Boeing Company” as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 6.

Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

2

THE INVENTION
Appellant states that: “[e]mbodiments of the present disclosure
generally relate to systems and methods for assessing motion of an aircraft
during a flight, and, more particularly, to systems and methods for assessing
the effects of motion during a flight, such as experienced during takeoff,
landing, and periods of air turbulence.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. An aircraft motion assessment system comprising:
a plurality of polling devices within an internal cabin an
aircraft, wherein the plurality of polling devices are associated
with passenger seats onboard the aircraft; and
a motion assessment control unit circuit communicatively
coupled to the plurality of polling devices, wherein the motion
assessment control unit circuit is configured to receive
passenger-input motion effects data from the plurality of
polling devices.

Appeal Br. 37 (Claims Appendix).

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fleming US 2007/0162197 A1 July 12, 2007
Swan US 2007/0229268 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
Kantarek US 2010/0145765 A1 June 10, 2010
Morgan US 2014/0176296 A1 June 26, 2014

Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

3

The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1–6, 9–17, and 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Kantarek.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Morgan in view of Kantarek and Fleming.
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Morgan in view of Kantarek, Fleming, and Swan.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Kantarek discloses:
One aspect of the system is to provide a graphical user interface
that allows an airline passenger to answer survey questions. In
one embodiment, the graphical user interface is shown on a
displayed mounted in an airline seat. The graphical user
interface may contain a number of selectable screens with each
screen containing one or more survey questions and selectable
icons that correspond to a survey answer. The user may answer
survey questions by selecting an icon from screen using an
input device such as a mouse, keyboard, keypad, or touch
screen.
Kantarek ¶ 8.
2. Kanterek discloses:
Another feature of the invention is the use of the novel system
by an airline to collect additional data from passengers that may
assist the operations of the airline. The system may also collect
passenger data such as number of bags checked, the purpose of
the trip (business or pleasure), seat preferences, trip duration,
luggage weight, etc. This information may be input by a
Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

4

passenger or retrieved from other airline computer systems.
Collecting this data may assist an airline in improving its
operations by, for example, providing a more accurate estimate
of fuel consumption for a given flight based on a historic data
relating to the number of bags checked and their weight by a
particular passenger.
Kantarek ¶ 11.
3. The Specification states:
Upon receiving the motion effects poll signal from the motion
assessment control unit 104, the polling devices 110 display a
motion effects poll, which prompts passengers at the locations
of and/or proximate to the polling device 110 to input their
opinions regarding the motion of the aircraft. In at least one
embodiment, the motion effects poll may query passengers
regarding levels of vibration and/or noise within the aircraft.
Spec. ¶ 36.
4. The Specification states:
When the motion assessment control unit 104 detects air
turbulence, the motion assessment control unit 104 outputs the
motion effects poll signal to the polling devices 110. That is, in
response to receiving the motion signals from the motion
sensor(s) 108 (such as when the motion signals exceed a
predetermined turbulence threshold), the motion assessment
control unit 104 may output the motion effects poll signal to the
polling devices 110.
Spec. ¶ 35.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION

Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

5

The rejections are affirmed as to claims 1, 3–5, 10–13, and 15, and
reversed as to claims 2, 6–9, 14, and 16–22. The Appellant does not provide
a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 3–5 and
10–13 that depend from claims 1 and 15, respectively, which are the sole
independent claims, respectively, among those claims. Therefore, regarding
the claims whose rejection is affirmed, we address only independent claims
1 and 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).
Claims 1 and 15
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 15 using Morgan in
combination with Kantarek. (Final Act. 7–9, 21).
Concerning independent claims 1 and 15, Appellant argues:
Morgan discloses utilizing a central monitoring system 201 at a
user device. See Morgan at [0077]. . . . Physical motion data
402 is collected from the device. See Morgan at [0081]. . . . In
Morgan, physical motion data is not received from a plurality
of polling devices.

(Appeal Br. 14–15 (citing Morgan, Figs. 2, 4), 22–23 (citing the same)).

This argument is not persuasive because Appellant is attacking the
Morgan reference individually when the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is
based on a combination of references to Morgan and Kantarek. (Final Act.
7–9, 21). The Examiner relies on Kantarek, and not Morgan, for the
teaching of collecting data from a plurality of polling devices associated
with passenger seats onboard the aircraft. (Final Act. 8, (FF 1, 2)). See In
Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

6

re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757–
58 (CCPA 1968).
Appellant argues, “Kantarek ‘relates to methods and systems for
conducting market research, product research, or advertising research.’ See
Kantarek at Abstract. Kantarek merely relates to providing a polling device
for presenting promotion and market research.” (Appeal Br. 16).
We disagree with Appellant. First, Kanterak does not completely
preclude using its airline polling data collection system from assisting the
operations of the airplane, and thus does not discourage its use as proposed
by the Examiner. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For
example, Kantarek discloses polling passengers to obtain aircraft related
information, such as, number of bags checked and seat preferences, which
according to Kantarek, improves the operation of the airline “[by] providing
a more accurate estimate of fuel consumption for a given flight based on a
historic data relating to the number of bags checked and their weight by a
particular passenger.” (FF 2).
Second, concerning the claimed data which is polled, claim 1
describes it as being, “passenger-input motion effects data from the plurality
of polling devices.” According to the Specification, this data is described as
representative of passengers’ “opinions regarding the motion of the aircraft.”
(FF. 3). This data is not prescribed by the claim as controlling any function.
As such, we find that the claimed “passenger-input motion effects data”
being data representing human opinion and hence thought, constitutes non-
Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

7

functional descriptive material, useful and intelligible only to the human
mind, and thus is given no patentable weight. See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d
1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claims 2 and 16

Representative claim 2 recites in pertinent part: “wherein the motion
assessment control unit circuit is configured to output a motion effects
polling signal to the plurality of polling devices, and wherein the plurality of
polling devices are configured to display a motion effects poll for passengers
based on the motion effects polling signal.”
Concerning this limitation the Examiner found that Morgan discloses
it at paragraph 77 stating, inter alia,
The various subsystems and configurations of FIG. 2 are
generally divided into data inputs 211 on one side and outputs
212 on the other; however, it should be understood that output
may in part be based on feedback, such that devices,
environments and applications depicted on the right side of
FIG. 2 can also provide input, such as in iterative and/or
feedback loops.

(Final Act. 9). And, the Examiner cites to Kantarek at paragraph 6 and
Figure 2, stating, “[w]hile on board, airline passengers are provided with a
product and asked to provide feedback about the product by completing a
survey.” (Final Act. 10).
Appellant argues, “Kantarek does not contemplate how to take a real-
time input signal, and specifically a motion effects polling signal, and then
Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

8

display a poll for passengers based on the real-time motion effects polling
signal as claimed. Instead, Kantarek teaches predetermined questions as a
result of predetermined answers.” (Appeal Br. 18, see also id. at 26 (arguing
the same with respect to claim 16)). Appellant further argues,

Kantarek simply does not describe, teach, or suggest generating
polling questions based on signals generated from real time
data, much less a system than may generate a poll specifically
based on motion effects polling signals, and one skilled in the
art would be unable to implement a device that provides a poll
based on real time data received from a second device based on
the teachings of Kantarek.

(Id. 18–19).
We agree with Appellant. Kantarek fails to disclose how polling
questions are triggered, much less triggering by a control unit circuit
configured to output a motion effects polling signal. According to the
Specification, the motion effects polling signal is described in the context of,
“[w]hen the motion assessment control unit 104 detects air turbulence, the
motion assessment control unit 104 outputs the motion effects poll signal to
the polling devices 110.” (FF. 4). We find nothing in the text of Kantarek
which discloses a signal causing the polling devices to display a motion
effects poll based on a detected condition, let alone one based on motion
detection. Equally silent, is paragraph 77 of Morgan, which the Examiner
cited in combination with Kantarek to reject claim 2. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2 and 16.
Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

9

Claims 6 and 17
Representative claim 6 recites in pertinent part, “wherein the motion
assessment control unit circuit compares the at least one motion signal and
passenger-input motion effects data received from the plurality of polling
devices.” Claim 6 incorporates the limitations of claim 52 on which it
depends. Claim 5 recites, “the motion assessment control unit circuit
outputs a motion effects polling signal.” As found above with respect to
claims 2 and 16, neither Morgan nor Kantarek disclos “a motion effects
polling signal.” Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 6 and 17 because these claims either explicitly
recite a “motion effects polling signal,” or depend from one that does.
Claims 9, 19, and 20
Representative claim 9 recites in pertinent part, “a poll triggering
device circuit, wherein the poll triggering device circuit is configured to be
engaged to cause the motion assessment control unit circuit to output a
motion effects polling signal to the plurality of polling devices.”
The Examiner relies on Morgan at paragraphs 123, 125, and 77, and
on Kantarek at paragraph 6 to meet this limitation. (Final Act. 14–15).

2 Although claims 5 and 10 recite a “motion effects polling signal,” which
we found determinative of patentability in our analysis of claims 2 and 16,
we note that because Appellant failed to argue separately claims 3–5 and
10–13 that depend from claims 1 and 15, respectively, and since we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, we
also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5 and
10.
Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

10

Claim 9 recites “a motion effects polling signal,” the same limitation
found in claims 2 and 16, and is similarly rejected under Morgan and
Kantarek. Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 16 which also recites a
“motion effects polling signal,” and is likewise similarly rejected. (See Final
Act. 21). Although all these claims recite the additional element of a poll
triggering device, we need not consider it given that our analysis above finds
that the combination of Morgan and Kantarek fails to disclose or make
obvious the claimed “motion effects polling signal.” Therefore, for this
reason alone, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 9, 19, and 20.
Claims 14, 21, and 223
Representative claim 14 recites in pertinent part
wherein the motion assessment control unit circuit is configured
to output a polling awareness signal to the plurality of polling
devices, wherein the plurality of polling devices are configured
to display a polling awareness message based on the motion
polling awareness signal, and wherein the polling awareness
message provides guidance as to the motions effects poll.

3 Claim 22 also recites, inter alia, “a motion effects polling signal,” “a
motion map,” and comparing “the at least one motion signal and passenger-
input motion effects data.” But, since the motion assessment control unit
circuit is the first recited limitation failing under 35 U.S.C. § 103in claim 22,
we proceed with our non–obviousness finding based on this first recited
limitation.

Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

11

Concerning this limitation, the Examiner cites again to Morgan at
paragraphs 77, 123, and 125 and to Kanterak at newly cited paragraph 8.
(Final Act. 19–21). But, there is nothing in Morgan at paragraphs 77, 123,
and 125 which discloses or suggests outputting a polling awareness signal to
the polling device by a motion assessment control unit circuit to generate a
polling awareness message. The Examiner’s reliance on Kantarek fairs no
better because it only discloses that an interface “allows an airline passenger
to answer survey questions,” which in our view means it is the decision of
the passenger when to launch the program. (FF. 1)
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 14 and 21, and independent claim 22.4
Claims 7, 8,5 and 18
Representative claim 7 recites in pertinent part, “wherein the motion
assessment control unit circuit is configured to generate a motion map of the
internal cabin based, at least in part, on passenger-input motion effects data
received from the plurality of polling devices.”
Concerning this limitation, the Examiner cited to Fleming at
paragraph 37 and found,
Although Morgan describes all elements needed to generate a
motion map, it does not expressly disclose said map. The

4 The additional references to Fleming and Swan (Final Act. 24–29) used to
reject claim 22, do not remedy the deficiency of Morgan and Kantarek
failing to disclose or suggest “a polling awareness signal.”
5 The additional reference to Swan (Final Act. 25) used to reject claim 8 fails
to remedy the shortcomings found in Fleming.
Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

12

combination of Morgan in view of Kantarek and in further view
of Fleming discloses a motion map in the form of a turbulence
map which is created in a 3-D space with information sent and
received by airplanes and their systems to ground systems
working in unison with a goal to minimize and if possible
eliminate the impact turbulence have on a flying airplane.

(Final Act. 5).
Appellant argues, “Fleming at [0037] discloses producing a
turbulence map, which the Office Action acknowledges. A turbulence map
is a map related to turbulence happening outside the internal cabin.”
(Appeal Br. 31; see also id. at 32 (arguing the same)) (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellant. According to Fleming, the map which is
generated tracks atmospheric turbulences such as “a surface area of interest,
such as the United States or a region of the United States . . . [with a] 3D
area extend[ing] from the ground to an elevation of interest, such as 12
kilometers (km).” Fleming ¶ 36. In our view, one of ordinary skill in the art
would not know to use this scale of mapping as effective to map turbulence
on a micro scale so as distinguished one region of an aircraft from another.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 7, 8, and 18.
We also affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 3– 5 and 10–13 since Appellant has not challenged these claims with
any reasonable specificity. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).

Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

13

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 10–
13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103and erred in rejecting claims 2, 6–9, 14, and
16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9–17,
19–21
103 Morgan, Kantarek 1, 3–5, 10–13,
15
2, 6, 9,
14, 16,
17, 19–
21
7, 18 103 Morgan, Kantarek,
Fleming
7, 18
8, 22 103 Morgan, Kantarek,
Fleming, Swan
8, 22
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 10–13,
15
2, 6–9,
14, 16–
22

Appeal 2020-002212
Application 15/259,123

14

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–22 is affirmed in part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART