ALEXANDER ROLINSKI (ASSIGNEE) et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2022

2021004868 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2022)

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. 90/014,307 06/11/2019 9834316 160310-8-RE 3500 19954 7590 02/01/2022 William Lovin & Associates LLC 2591 Dallas Parkway Suite 300 Frisco, TX 75034 EXAMINER REICHLE, KARIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXANDER ROLINSKI et al. Patent Owner and Appellant Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B21 Technology Center 3900 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, DANIEL S. SONG, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306, the Appellant2 appeals from the final rejection of claims 1-17. The Appellant seeks to cancel claims 18- 1 Issued to Rolinski et al. on December 5, 2017 (“the ’316 Patent”). The ’316 Patent issued from Application No. 15/617,088 (filed June 8, 2017), which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 15/420,270 (filed Jan. 31, 2017), and further claims priority to provisional Application No. 62/308,271 (filed Mar. 15, 2016) (“the ’271 Provisional Application”). 2 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alexander Rolinski, et al. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 2 20.3 Appeal Br. 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a portable, externally mounted device for an aircraft to provide user selected readings of various conditions. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A data sensing and collection device comprising: a. an aerodynamically configured housing mounted to a stalk adjustable in at least one axis wherein the stalk is adhesively affixed to an exterior aspect of a flying machine and the housing is not attached to the exterior aspect of the flying machine; b. wherein said housing contains an electronic device comprising: i. a battery; ii. a differential pressure sensor and attached pitot tube; iii. a barometric altimeter (pressure sensor); iv. a temperature sensor; v. a gyroscope; vi. an accelerometer; vii. a magnetometer; viii. a microcontroller and storage facility; and ix. a radio transceiver; c. wherein the electronic device: is powered by the battery; the microcontroller collects the readings of the differential pressure sensor derived from its attached pitot tube; 3 We treat claims 18-20 as having been canceled by the Appellant for the purpose of this appeal. Appeal Br. 10 (“Claims 18-20 are hereby canceled.”). However, these claims should be formally canceled by amendment in any further prosecution. See Ans. 6. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 3 the microcontroller collects the readings of the barometric altimeter (pressure sensor), the temperature sensor, the gyroscope, the accelerometer, and the magnetometer; and the microcontroller uses the associated radio transceiver to transmit the readings to a displaying media device whereupon the displaying media device displays at least one of the transmitted readings. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Vozhdaev US 8,256,284 Sept. 4, 2012 Lockhart US 9,963,242 May 8, 2018 L3G4200D MEMS motion sensor: three-axis digital output gyroscope (2010) (“Gyro Manual”). iLevil AW: Revolutionary ADS-B Receiver for Experimentals and LSA (July 10, 2013) (“iLevil AW Revolutionary”). Final Design Report AD-AHRS Pitot Chamber, Fernandez et al. (April 17, 2014) (“Fernandez”). Installation Guide 978MHz ADS-B receiver + GPS + AD-AHRS (“iLevil AW Guide”). AHRS-G micro, Attitude and Heading Reference System (“AHRS Manual”). REJECTIONS4 1. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description. Final Act. 10. 2. Claims 1-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as not being enabled. Final Act. 12. 4 As noted above, we treat claims 18-20 as having been canceled for the purposes of this appeal. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 4 3. Claims 1-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 13. 4. Claims 1-6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fernandez as evidenced by, or in view of, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, and Gyro Manual, and in further view of Lockhart. Final Act. 13. 5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fernandez as evidenced by, or in view of, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, and Gyro Manual, and in further view of Lockhart and Vozhdaev. Final Act. 27. 6. Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fernandez as evidenced by, or in view of, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, and Gyro Manual, and in further view of iLevil AW Revolutionary. Final Act. 28. 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fernandez as evidenced by, or in view of, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, Gyro Manual, and iLevil AW Revolutionary, and in further view of Lockhart. Final Act. 33. OPINION Rejection 1: Written Description The Examiner rejects claims 1-17, determining that the various newly added limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 7 lack written description. Final Act. 10. In so doing, the Examiner determines that the Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 5 ’271 Provisional Application5 (to which the ’316 Patent claims priority) and in particular, its disclosures in paragraphs 12, 13, and 18, do not provide descriptive support for the newly added limitations. Final Act. 11.6 The Appellant argues that the rejection is improper “because all of the matter included in [claims 1 and 7 are] disclosed at least” in the ’316 Patent, and “[c]laims 1-17 derive literal support from [the ’316 Patent].” Appeal Br. 10. Claim 1: Microcontroller and Magnetometer As to independent claim 1, the Examiner initially determines that the ’271 Provisional Application does not disclose a magnetometer or its readings collected by the microcontroller. Final Act. 10. In response, the Appellant argues that “[t]his is disclosed at least at U.S. Pat. No. 9,834,316, Col. 3, line 44, Col. 4, lines 21-22, and, Col. 4, lines 25-28.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds that although the cited portions of the ’361 Patent 5 U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/308,271, filed March 15, 2016. 6 It is not apparent why the rejection is limited to the disclosure in the ’271 Provisional Application rather than the application that issued as the ’316 Patent. There is no issue pertaining to priority date of the appealed claims, and the Appellant does not dispute that Fernadez and the associated iLevil references applied in the rejection are prior art. Although written description is assessed based on the specification of the application, which issued as the ’316 Patent, in view of the Appellant’s Appeal Brief pointing to the ’316 Patent for written descriptive support, and the Examiner’s subsequent position in the Answer that even the ’316 Patent fails to provide written descriptive support, we consider this rejection, as well as Rejections 2 and 3, in view of the specification of the ’316 Patent. There has been no argument of any substantive difference between the specification of the application versus as issued. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 6 discloses a magnetometer, they “do not recite the microcontroller collects readings therefrom as claimed in amended claim 1,” and maintains the rejection. Ans. 6. The Appellant has the better position. The “test for sufficiency [under § 112] is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). “[T]he description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure . . . or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba.” Id. In addition, “a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (a skilled artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references expressly disclose). As established by the above portions referenced by the Appellant, the ’316 Patent discloses a magnetometer, which is a sensor that senses magnetic fields. As to collecting readings from the magnetometer, we observe that the invention is directed to “[a] data sensing and collection device 100 (DSCD) for sensing, collecting, and transmitting flight data,” the device including a microcontroller 109. Spec., col. 3, ll. 33-35. The ’316 Patent also discloses that the wireless transceiver “transmit[s] collected data from the data sensing and collection device,” and “the user observes the data collected by the data sensing and collection device via the application.” Spec., col. 2, ll. 20-23, 60-62. The ’316 Patent further discloses that Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 7 “[m]icrocontroller 109 and storage facility 110 perform all computational tasks for data sensing and collection device 100.” Spec., col. 4, ll. 29-31. Accordingly, although the ’316 Patent does not explicitly state that the microcontroller collects readings from the magnetometer, in our view, its disclosures reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the microcontroller performs this function. Claim 1: Display of Readings The Examiner also determines that the added limitation in claim 1 reciting that “the displaying media device displays at least one of the transmitted readings,” is not supported by the ’271 Provisional Application. Final Act. 11. The Appellant argues that “[t]his is disclosed explicitly at least at U.S. Pat. No. 9,834,316, Col. 2, lines 15-23, and, Col. 2, lines 29- 43.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds that the cited portions of the ’316 Patent still do not disclose the display of at least one of the transmitted readings. Ans. 7. We agree with the Appellant. The ’316 Patent specifically teaches that “the present invention comprises two components: 1) A data sensing and collection device with wireless connectivity to a displaying media device such as a cellular telephone or tablet computer; and 2) An application running on the displaying media device capable of receiving, displaying, and storing the transmitted data.” Spec., col. 1, l. 64-col. 2, l. 3. The ’316 Patent also specifically teaches: The application has a multiplicity of display windows each capable of displaying information received from the data sensing and collection device. For each type of data transmitted Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 8 by the data sensing and collection device, the application is capable of displaying at least: 1) The instantaneous current value in a numeric format; and, 2) The instantaneous and historic values in a graphical format. Also, the application is capable of collectively displaying each type of data transmitted by the data sensing and collection device in one window. Spec., col. 2, ll. 34-36. To any extent that the Examiner’s position may be that such disclosure merely discloses the application displaying the data, in view of the fact that the application runs on the disclosed cellular telephone or tablet computer and a display screen would be necessary to actually display anything, such disclosures reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that “the displaying media device displays at least one of the transmitted readings.” Claim 7: Software Application Wireless Connection As to independent claim 7, the Examiner determines that the added limitation “activating a software application running on a cellular telephone or tablet computer wherein the software application wirelessly connects to the data sensing and collection device” is not supported by the ’271 Provisional Application. Final Act. 10. The Appellant argues that “[t]his is disclosed explicitly at least at U.S. Pat. No. 9,834,316, Col. 2, lines 54-63.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner again responds that the cited portion of the ’316 Patent still does not disclose the pertinent limitation. Ans. 8. The cited portion of the ’316 Patent discloses that “the user activates the application installed on his cellular telephone or tablet computer and establishes communication with the data sensing and collection device.” Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 9 Spec., col. 2, ll. 54-63; see also Spec., col. 5, ll. 21-24 (“The software application . . . [i]nitializ[es] the data communication link between data sensing and collection device 100 and the application.”). Although this passage does not explicitly state a wireless communication, we observe that the ’316 Patent also discloses that “[d]ata will be communicated wirelessly between the present invention and the cellular telephone or tablet computer,” and that “the present invention comprises . . . [a] data sensing and collection device with wireless connectivity to a displaying media device such as a cellular telephone or tablet computer.” Spec., col. 1, ll. 54-56, 64-67. Therefore, such disclosures reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of “activating a software application running on a cellular telephone or tablet computer wherein the software application wirelessly connects to the data sensing and collection device.” Claim 7: Selecting Data to be Displayed The Examiner also determines that the added limitations “using the software application . . . to select the type of data to be collected . . . [and] to be displayed” and “transmitting the collected data from the data sensing and collection device to, and displaying the collected data on, the cellular telephone or tablet computer,” are not supported by the ’271 Provisional Application. Final Act. 11. The Appellant argues that “[t]his is disclosed explicitly at U.S. Pat. No. 9,834,316, Col. 2, lines 54-63.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner responds that the cited portion of the ’316 Patent still does not disclose the limitation. Ans. 8. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 10 We disagree with the Examiner. The cited portion of the ’316 Patent discloses that “the user selects what data he wishes to see displayed by the application. . . . [and] the user observes the data collected by the data sensing and collection device via the application.” Col. 2, ll. 54-63. In addition, as already discussed above, the ’316 Patent reasonably conveys the inventor’s possession of the transmission and display of the data on a cellular telephone or a tablet computer. Summary In view of the above, we reverse the Examiner’s written description rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, as well as of dependent claims 2-6 and 8-17. Rejection 2: Enablement The Examiner rejects claims 1-6 and 15-17, determining that the claim 1 limitations “the microcontroller collects the readings of the differential pressure sensor derived from its attached pitot tube” and “the microcontroller collects the readings” of the various sensors, are not enabled by the ’271 Provisional Application. Final Act. 12. The Appellant argues that “[c]laim 1 is fully enabled at least at U.S. Pat. No. 9,834,316 Col. 3, lines 31-67, Col. 4, Col. 5, and, Col. 6, lines 1-6.” Appeal Br. 11-12. The test for enablement is whether one skilled in the art would have to resort to undue experimentation in order to practice the invention. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 503 (CCPA 1976). Undue experimentation analysis may include consideration of: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 11 (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Examiner’s rejection does not set forth any undue experimentation analysis, and as such, is deficient. Accordingly, we reverse this enablement rejection. Rejection 3: Indefiniteness The Examiner rejects claims 1-6 and 15-17 as being indefinite, determining that the claims are “incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements” for the reasons set forth relative to Rejection 2. Final Act. 13. However, having determined that Rejection 2 is deficient, we likewise find this indefinite determination to be deficient. The Examiner further rejects claim 1, and claims 2-6 and 15-17 depending therefrom, as being indefinite because the phrase “the readings” (which is repeated three times in claim 1) lacks antecedent bases. Final Act. 13. The Appellant argues that “the phrase ‘the readings’ are not present in any of the claims under appeal.” Appeal Br. 12. That is incorrect because the amended claim 1 recites “the microcontroller collects the readings” and “the microcontroller uses the associated receiver to transmit the readings” in the final three, newly added limitations. Appeal Br. 21-22 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 12 Nevertheless, we disagree with the Examiner’s determination that the lack of proper antecedent bases for “the readings” renders these claims indefinite. A lack of antecedent basis is not per se a reason for finding a claim indefinite. “In Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) the court held that despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, ‘[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.’” Energizer Holdings Inc. v. United States ITC, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In addition, antecedent basis can be present by implication. Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987); cf. Bose v. JBL, 274 F.3d at 1359 (“Inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis in the recitation of the components themselves.”). It is well known that sensors are typically provided to measure a parameter, and read for their output, i.e. to obtain readings. In claim 1, the first limitation at issue recites “the microcontroller collects the readings of the differential pressure sensor derived from its attached pitot tube,” which makes it clear that the readings are of the recited differential pressure sensor. The same applies to the second limitation, which recites that “the microcontroller collects the readings of” various sensors. As to the third limitation, which recites “the microcontroller uses the associated radio transceiver to transmit the readings to a displaying media device,” we interpret this limitation as refering to the readings of all of the sensors recited in the earlier limitations.7 7 Although we reverse the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection based on the phrase “the readings,” the Appellant should nonetheless consider correcting Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 13 Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of independent claim 1, and of claims 2-6 and 15-17 ultimately depending from claim 1. Rejection 4: Claims 1-6, 16, and 17 As to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Fernandez, as evidenced by, or in view of, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, and Gyro Manual, discloses a data sensing and collection device substantially as claimed. Final Act. 13-20. However, the Examiner finds that these references do not “disclose how the data is handled between the sensor components/modules and the transmitter interface.” Final Act. 13-21. The Examiner relies on Lockhart for disclosing handling of such data and the transmitter interface, and concludes that it would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Lockhart to the device of Fernandez to “includ[e] known elements for their intended purpose to yield a predictable result of performing environmental/atmospheric sensing (i.e. monitoring of exterior conditions during flight) to aid in the piloting of aircraft in the same way, i.e. sensor data acquisition/collection and passing data to a wireless external control/data interface.” Final Act. 21. the lack of antecedent basis in any subsequent prosection. In that regard, the claim language can be made further clear by using more specific language, for example, by reciting “first readings” and “second readings” to distinguish the readings collected by the microcontroller, and to recite that the transceiver transmits “both the first readings and the second readings.” Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 14 Temperature Sensor The Appellant “concede[s] that all elements EXCEPT the temperature sensor measuring atmospheric temperature and the calculations based on the atmospheric pressure may be found in the prior art.” Final Act. 13. The Appellant also specifically concedes that “the L3G4200D semiconductor chip that is the basis, internally, of the iLevil AW does disclose a temperature sensor.” Appeal Br. 14. However, the Appellant argues that this temperature sensor “is not read by the iLevil AW and even if read could not be used to measure ‘atmospheric temperature,’” but instead, measures the temperature of the interior of the iLevil AW unit itself. Appeal Br. 14. In contrast, the Appellant points out that the ’316 Patent discloses that the recited temperature sensor “reads the temperature of the air around data sensing and collection device 100.” Appeal Br. 13 (quoting Spec., col. 4, ll. 6-7; col. 7, ll. 13-14). Thus, the Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because neither Fernandez nor iLevil AW discloses a temperature sensor that measures atmospheric temperature, and “the temperature sensor inside the iLevil AW cannot read the ‘atmospheric temperature’ because it does not come into contact with it.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Fernandez ¶ 17). The Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. As the Appellant concedes, provision of a temperature sensor, and measuring the internal temperature of iLevil AW, are known. Appeal Br. 14; Fernandez 17; Gyro Manual. As such, we find it more likely than not that the disclosed temperature sensor is read by iLevil AW. Otherwise, there would be no reasonable for providing the temperature sensor. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 15 In addition, as the Examiner correctly points out, the “claims do not recite a temperature sensor measuring atmospheric temperature.” Ans. 10. Claim 1 does not state what the temperature sensor measures, but merely requires the temperature sensor to be contained in the housing. The Examiner is correct that a “temperature sensor that reads atmospheric temperature . . . is not commensurate with [the] claim language.” Ans. 11. It is well established that features not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Although not explicitly stated, it is apparent that the Appellant is requesting that the limitation “a temperature sensor” be interpreted to mean “an atmospheric temperature sensor.” However, as the Examiner also points out, the Specification discloses that the data sensing and collection device comprises various subsystems listed, including a temperature sensor. Ans. 10; Spec., col. 2, ll. 15-23. Independent claim 1 recites a similar listing, simply reciting an aerodynamically configured housing including “an electronic device comprising . . . a temperature sensor.” Ans. 11. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that “a temperature sensor of an electronic device contained in a housing is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language consistent with the specification,” and not an “atmospheric temperature sensor.” Ans. 11. Although the Specification does describe an embodiment wherein the temperature sensor “reads the temperature of the air around data sensing and collection device 100,” the claim is not so narrowly tailored. A particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See SuperGuide Corp. v. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 16 DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). If “an atmospheric temperature sensor” was intended to be claimed, the Appellant should amend the claim accordingly. True Airspeed The Appellant also notes that the ’271 Provisional Application discloses that “currently, there is no simple, inexpensive way for aircraft pilots to view and record flight data that includes airspeed, true airspeed, atmospheric temperature, and atmospheric pressure.” Appeal Br. 15 (quoting ’271 Provisional Application ¶ 8; citing ¶¶ 1, 2). The Appellant asserts that “airspeed” and “true airspeed” are different in that “true airspeed” is airspeed that is corrected for temperature and pressure, and requires temperature at the altitude for calculation. Appeal Br. 15. Based thereon, the Appellant argues that iLevil AW “specifically does not disclose outputting true airspeed,” and instead, discloses indicated airspeed. Appeal Br. 15-16. The Appellant argues that in contrast, the ’271 Provisional Application “does disclose ‘true airspeed’ because it discloses measuring the temperature at the altitude at which the calculation is made.” Appeal Br. 16. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 17 However, as the Examiner responds, the distinction between the terms “airspeed” and “true airspeed” is unpersuasive because neither term appears in claims 1-6, 16, and 17. Ans. 12. The Appellant also requests that in the appeal, the Board: Amend or replace the claimed elements in independent Claim 1 to reference “true airspeed” as a claimed element in the last paragraph of Claim 1. Specifically, the last paragraph of Claim 1 could be amended to read: “the microcontroller uses the associated radio transceiver to transmit the readings including true airspeed to a displaying media device whereupon the displaying media device displays at least one of the transmitted readings including true airspeed.” Appeal Br. 18-19. However, the Board has no authority to amend claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 6 (setting forth the duties of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board). The Appellant can make such amendments during the reexamination if it so desires. Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 16, and 17. Rejection 5: Claim 15 The Examiner rejects claim 15 as being obvious over Fernandez as evidenced by, or in view of, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, and Gyro Manual, in further view of Lockhart and Vozhdaev. Final Act. 27. The Examiner finds that Fernandez, as applied to claim 1, fails to disclose a second differential pressure with two atmospherically connected input tubes terminating outside the housing as required by claim 15. Final Act. 27. The Examiner relies on Vozhdaev to remedy this deficiency, and to conclude that Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 18 claim 15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 27-28. The Appellant does not submit arguments directed to claim 15 or the applied prior art specifically, but instead, relies on dependency on claim 1, and its arguments regarding atmospheric temperature and true airspeed, in support of patentability. Appeal Br. 17. However, having found the Appellant’s arguments relative to claim 1 unpersuasive, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as well. Rejection 6: Claims 7-14 As to independent claim 7, the Examiner finds that Fernandez, as evidenced by, or in view of, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, and Gyro Manual, and in further view of iLevil AW Revolutionary, discloses a method of monitoring flight data substantially as claimed, and concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have further applied the teachings of iLevil AW Revolutionary “to yield a predictable result of facilitating full engine instrumentation display with the iLevil AW in the same way, i.e. iPad interface/display.” Final Act. 28-31. Claims 8-14 depend from claim 7. The Appellant does not submit arguments directed to claim 7 or the applied prior art specifically, but instead, relies on arguments regarding true airspeed, in support of patentability. Appeal Br. 18. However, considering “[c]laims 7-14 do not recite ‘true airspeed,’” the Appellant’s arguments based on any distinction between the terms “airspeed” and “true airspeed” are unpersuasive. Ans. 12. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 19 As in Rejection 4, the Appellant also requests that we: Amend or replace the claimed elements in independent Claim 7 to reference “true airspeed” as a claimed element in subclause (e.) of Claim 7. Specifically, Claim 7(e) could be amended to read: “e. transmitting the collected data including true airspeed from the data sensing and collection device to, and displaying the collected data including true airspeed on, the cellular telephone or tablet computer.” Appeal Br. 19. However, as explained, the Board has no authority to amend claims, and the Appellant can make such amendments during the reexamination if it so desires. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, and claims 8-14, which are not separately argued. Rejection 7: Claim 8 The Examiner further rejects claim 8 as being obvious over Fernandez as evidenced by, or in view of, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, Gyro Manual, and iLevil AW Revolutionary, and in further view of Lockhart. Final Act. 33. As the Examiner notes, the Appellant does not address this rejection in its Appeal Brief. Ans. 13. To any extent the Appellant relies on dependency on claim 7 and previously submitted arguments for patentability of claim 8, such reliance and arguments are unpersuasive for reasons already discussed. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection as well. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part. More specifically, Rejection 1 of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description is reversed. Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 20 Rejection 2 of claims 1-6 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as not being enabled is reversed. Rejection 3 of claims 1-6 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite is reversed. Rejections 4-7 of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the applied prior art references are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-17 112(a) Written Description 1-17 1-6, 15-17 112(a) Enablement 1-6, 15-17 1-6, 15-17 112(b) Indefinite 1-6, 15-17, 1-6, 16, 17 103 Fernandez, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, Gyro Manual, Lockhart 1-6, 16, 17 15 103 Fernandez, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, Gyro Manual, Lockhart, Vozhdaev 15 7-14 103 Fernandez, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, Gyro Manual, iLevil AW Revolutionary 7-14 8 103 Fernandez, iLevil AW Guide, AHRS Manual, Gyro Manual, iLevil AW 8 Appeal 2021-004868 Reexamination Control 90/014,307 Patent US 9,834,316 B2 21 Revolutionary, Lockhart Overall Outcome 1-17 REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED For Appellant: William Lovin & Associates LLC 2591 Dallas Parkway Suite 300 Frisco, TX 75034 For Third Party: Daniel Law Offices, PA 605 East Robinson Street, Ste. 105 Orlando, FL 32801