Ex Parte Aspen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2018

12359079 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

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.
12/359,079 01/23/2009 Sven D. Aspen 7784-001146/US/CPA 3731
120226 7590 03/15/2018
Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2018 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):
PAIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PatentAdmin@boeing.com
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SVEN D. ASPEN, ANDREAS SINDLINGER,
and PATRICK WIPPLINGER
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 21—31. App. Br. 1. Claims 1—20 have been
canceled. Id. at 17 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action (Final
Act.) mailed July 10, 2015, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed January 11,
2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed June 15, 2016, and (4) the
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed August 15, 2016.
2 The real party in interest is listed as The Boeing Company. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a display system, method, and
computer program product “for dynamically displaying aircraft flight
information.” Spec., Abstract. For example, a “processor is configured to
display a flight map for the aircraft on the display, to evaluate state
variable(s) dynamically representing state(s) in the aircraft system
environment, and dynamically modify the flight map based at least in part on
the evaluation.” Id.
Illustrative claim 25 is reproduced below:
25. A method of displaying context aware craft navigational
information, the method comprising:
receiving real-time navigational information from a state
manager and displaying the real-time navigational information
on a display system, wherein the state manager is in
communication with: the display system, a user input
component, a real-time system environment of the craft
comprised of real-time airborne and ground-based information
that define at least one state variable for the craft, and a data
base management system that includes at least one craft-
specific rule;
receiving dynamic user requests for display of real time
navigational information from the user input component;
modifying the display of real-time navigational
information in response to the received dynamic user requests;
and
dynamically controlling the display of the real time
navigational information on the display system based on the at
least one state variable for the craft and the at least one craft-
specific rule.[3]
3 Various amendments to the claims were submitted in this application.
According to Office records, the October 7, 2015 Amendment submitted
after Final Action was the entered on November 3, 2015 as part of the
Advisory Action (Adv. Act.). See Adv. Act. 1, box 7.
2
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Orf US 7,386,374 B1 June 10,2008
Deleris US 8,135,502 B2 Mar. 13,2012
The Rejections
Claims 21—31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.4
Claims 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112, first
paragraph (pre-AIA), as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3.
Claims 21—31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112, first
paragraph (pre-AIA), as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3.5
Claims 21, 22, and 24—31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Deleris. Final Act. 5—7; Ans. 4—6.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) or § 103 as
unpatentable over Deleris and Orf. Final Act. 8; Ans. 7.
4 The separate rejection of claims 28 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Final
Act. 3) has been withdrawn. Ans. 7—8.
5 The rejection of claims 21—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or § 112, second
paragraph (pre-AIA) (Final Act. 4), is repeated in the Examiner Answer (see
Ans. 8—9). For purposes of this decision, we presume this rejection has been
withdrawn because the Examiner (1) does not include the rejection in the
Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal section {id. at 3), (2)
discusses this rejection in the WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS section {id. at
8—9), and (3) does not discuss this rejection in the Response to Argument
section {see id. at 14—15).
3
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
I. THE STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION
Regarding representative claim 25,6 7the Examiner states the claim is
directed to an abstract idea of displaying navigational map information
implemented using a generic computer performing generic functions. Final
Act. 2; Ans. 9, 11—12. The Examiner further states the claim does not recite
significantly more than conventional activities or the abstract idea itself.
Final Act. 2; Ans. 9—10. The Examiner contends “[t]he claims do not
include improvements to another technology or technical field; nor do they
include improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.” Ans. 11.
Appellants argue claim 25 is not directed to a judicial exception and
that displaying navigational information is not abstract. App. Br. 8.
Appellants also assert claim 25 recites significantly more than conventional
and routine rules. Id. at 8—9. Appellants assert claim 25 provides
improvements to the technical field of navigation display “by limiting the
display of information to that which is needed in the moment and allowing
for significant customization or rules[7] governing such limits on the display
of information.” Id. at 9 (citing Spec. 118). Appellants also assert claim 25
addresses a challenge particular to modem computer systems and do not pre­
empt basic tools of scientific and technological work. Id. at 10—11 (citing
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotds.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
6 Appellants argue claims 21, 22, and 24—31 collectively. App. Br. 14—15.
We select claim 25 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7 Claim 21 reproduced at page 8 of the Appeal Brief includes limitations to a
“data driven logic tree to process conditional rules,” which is not part of the
latest set of claims entered on November 3, 2015. Adv. Act. 1.
4
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
ISSUE
Under § 101 has the Examiner erred by finding claims 21—31 are
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 25. Appellants reproduce independent claim 21 to include
“the state manager configured to implement at least one data driven logic
tree to process conditional rules which are input using the user input. . .
App. Br. 8. Yet, the last entered amendment of claim 21 on November 3,
2015 as reproduced in the Claims Appendix does not include a recitation to a
“logic tree” or “conditional rules.” Adv. Act. 1; App. Br. 17 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 25 and 28 also fail to include these recitations. App. Br.
18—19 (Claims App.). Thus, some of the arguments related to how these
purportedly recited features (e.g., conditional rules applied to data-drive
logic trees and define logically related conditions used to control the display
dynamically) are a novel approach to customize a display in real-time and do
not tie up a judicial exception are unavailing. App. Br. 8—11.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for “any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof.” The Supreme Court has . . long held
that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2354 (quoting Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the
two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v.
5
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82—84 (2012), “for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an abstract idea.
Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic
practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and
mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355—57. If the claims are
not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the
inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are
considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
Applying the first step in the analysis, claim 25 is directed to an
abstract idea of organizing human activities, such as collecting, organizing,
and analyzing “context aware craft” or “real-time” navigational information
in a way that is analogous to human mental work. That is, claim 25 recites a
method for “displaying context aware craft navigational information”
including (1) receiving and displaying real-time navigational information,
(2) receiving dynamic user requests for display of real-time navigational
information from the user input component, (3) modifying the display of
real-time information in response to the user requests, and (4) dynamically
controlling the display of real-time navigational information based on a state
variable for the craft and a craft-specific rule. App. Br. 18 (Claims App.).
6
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
Such steps involving well-known steps of collecting and analyzing
information, including when limited to particular content (e.g., receiving
real-time navigation information and dynamic user requests and controlling
the display based on a state variable and a craft-specific rule as recited in
claim 25), are similar to those steps people perform in their mind and are
“within the realm of abstract ideas.” Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353—54 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369—70 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Moreover, “merely presenting the results of abstract processes
of collecting and analyzing information, without more” (e.g., modifying the
display of real-time information in response to a user request as recited) is
also abstract. Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354.
As for the recitation “dynamically controlling the display of the real
time navigational information on the display system based on the at least one
state variable for the craft and the at least one craft-specific rule” in claim
25, we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 9) that this recitation has
similarities to SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555
F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In SmartGene, the claims were directed
to (1) a computing device with basic functionalities, (2) routine input,
comparison, and output capabilities, and (3) evaluating and selecting
information based on knowledge-based “rules,” but still deemed to be
directed to an abstract idea. See id. at 954. Claim 25 similarly involves a
method for dynamically controlling the displaying context aware craft
navigational information with routine input, processing, and output and
selecting information based on a state variable and craft-specific rule. App.
Br. 18 (Claims App.).
7
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
To the extent the recited “craft-specific rule” roots claim 25 in
computer technology (see App. Br. 10-11), claim 25’s recitations are
directed to a generic computer/processor controlling a display based on a
rule. App. Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Specification similarly describes the
invention relates “to navigational displays and ... to dynamically displaying
navigational data for a craft such as an aircraft or water vessel.” Spec. 12.
The disclosure states the display can be modified based on the aircraft’s
state, user-provided rules (which, as discussed below, are not “craft-
specific”), and an evaluation of the state and rules. See id. Tflf 6—8, 18, 20-
21, 29-30. The Specification also discusses logic trees are used to specify
rules for displaying data and provide context-aware display of information.
See id. Tflf 26—28. But, as explained in this Opinion, these features are not
the claims.
Whether or not “dynamically controlling the display of the real time
navigational information on the display system based on” the state variable
and a craft-specific rule as recited in claim 25 involves a computer executing
an algorithm, simply reciting using a computer to execute an algorithm that
can be performed entirely in the human mind or by a human does not turn a
general purpose computer performing an algorithm into a new machine
programmed to perform particular functions. See CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374—75 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Nor have
Appellants demonstrated sufficiently the Specification describes claim 25’s
recitations, which do not include logic trees or applying conditional rules,
involve any specialized algorithm. See App. Br. 8—11.
Also, the focus of claim 25 is not on an improvement in
(1) computer’s function or operation (e.g., a particular database having a
8
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
self-referential table as discussed in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1335—36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) or (2) computers as tools {see Electric
Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). Rather, claim 25, at best, uses an existing
computer/processor as a tool for assisting in claimed method focused on
abstract ideas. App. Br. 18 (Claims App.). Claim 25 also is not directed to
an Internet-centric invention or a challenge specific to modem computer
systems, in contrast with the claims in DDR. See App. Br. 9—10. We, thus,
agree (1) claim 25 “fail[s] to provide a technical solution to any network or
Internet-centric challenges” (Ans. 12), (2) the “claims here do not address
problems unique to the Internet” {id. at 13), and (3) the claims are not
“rooted in the technology in order to overcome a problem specifically
arising in the computer network (or other technological) realm” {id.).
As for second step under the § 101 patent eligibility analysis, we
agree with the Examiner claim 25 does not recite an inventive concept or
significantly more than conventional and routine activities of the abstract
idea itself. Final Act. 2; Ans. 9—12, 14. Above, we addressed how the
claims individually and as an ordered combination recite routine elements.
Furthermore, claim 25 does not recite additional elements that transform the
nature of claim 25 into a patent-eligible application. App. Br. 18 (Claims
App.). Claim 25 merely recites the abstract idea of receiving and displaying
information, receiving user requests, and modifying information displayed in
response to user requests and based on a state variable and a craft-specific
rule. Appellants contend that craft-specific rules can suppress information
related to taxiways that an aircraft cannot use and this is related to the
technological area of “human-computer interaction (HCI)” and “intelligent
management of information being displayed goes to the core of
9
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
technological improvements.” Reply Br. 4. Yet, this discussion related to
the rules for suppressing taxiway information is not claimed or supported by
the disclosure as discussed below in more detail.
Thus, unlike Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see Reply Br. 3—4), claim 25
does not describe sufficiently improving on an existing technological
process. We, therefore, determine claim 25, when considered individually
and as an ordered combination, does not recite additional elements that
transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Lastly, Appellants refer to Example 23 of the “July 2015 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility”8 in asserting claim 25 is patent eligible. App.
Br. 11; Reply Br. 3. We do not see the parallel between “claims directed to
relocating/reformatting text in a window so that the text is unobscured by an
overlapping” (App. Br. 11) and claim 25. Also, Example 23 includes both
patent eligible subject matter (e.g., claims 1 and 4) and patent ineligible
subject matter (e.g., claims 2 and 3). Claim 25 in the instant application is
more akin to Example 23’s claims 2 and 3, which recites calculating a
scaling factor for text information based on data differences and which are
indicated to be patent ineligible subject matter under 35U.S.C. § 101. See
July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, Example 23, pp. 8, 10—11.
8 July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, pp. 7—12, available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-appl.pdf.
10
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 21 and claims 22—31,9 which are not
separately argued.
II. THE LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTIONS
Claims 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112, first
paragraph (pre-AIA), because the Specification does not describe a
computer-readable storage medium such as to convey reasonably to one
skilled in the art the inventor would have had possession of the claimed
“computer-readable storage medium” recited in claim 28. Final Act. 3^4;
Ans. 3.
Claims 21—31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or § 112,
first paragraph (pre-AIA), because the Specification does not describe
claimed subject matter such as to convey reasonably to one skilled in the art
the inventor would have had possession of the claimed “craft-specific rule”
recited in claims 21, 25, and 28. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3.
ISSUES
Under § 112(a) or § 112, first paragraph (pre-AIA), has the Examiner
erred by finding the Specification does not describe claimed subject matter
in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art would have reasonably found
the inventors had possession of:
9 Notably, dependent claims 22—24 and 29 improperly depend from canceled
claim 1. App. Br. 17, 19 (Claims App.). For purposes of this Opinion, we
presume claims 22—24 and 29 depend from claim 21.
11
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
(A) “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” recited in
claim 28 and
(B) “a data base management system that includes at least one craft-
specific rule” recited in claim 21?
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 28 and 31
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 28 and the recitation “a non-transitory computer-readable
storage medium.” As the Appellants explain (App. Br. 12—13), the
Specification describes system 20 “for displaying aircraft flight information”
and “to provide a dynamic display” that includes computer 24 having
processor 28, memory 32, and display 40. Spec. 119, Fig. 1. This
description of memory 32 in the disclosure supports the claimed “computer-
readable storage medium” in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can
reasonably conclude the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
B. Claims 21—31
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21—31 and the recitation “craft-specific rule.” Appellants
argue these claims collectively (App. Br. 13), and we select independent
claim 21 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants assert paragraph 21 of the Specification explains the
disputed recitation in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art would have
reasonably concluded the inventors has possession of “a data base
management system that includes at least one craft-specific rule” as recited
12
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
in independent claim 21, and similarly recited in independent claims 25 and
28. App. Br. 13. We disagree.
Paragraph 21 discusses system 20 “may refer to a plurality of rules
and state variables in determining whether ... to display objects on a flight
map.” Spec. 121. These “plurality of rules” are not (1) described as “craft-
specific” rules or (2) referred to as rules specific to any craft. Id. Granted,
the disclosure states system 20 can also include or refer to data sources 60
including “user-defined rules relating to state variable(s)” {id., Fig. 1), and
one such user “may include a manufacturer of the aircraft 48, an airline or
other provider of the aircraft 48, and/or a pilot of the aircraft 48.” Id.', see
also Spec. 25, 27—28, Fig. 2. An aircraft manufacturer, an airline, other
provider, or a pilot of aircraft may be z/.s^r-specific (e.g., rules defined by a
manufacture, an airline, other provider, or a pilot), but they are not “craft-
specific” rules as recited. See id.
Rules defined by an aircraft manufacturer may suggest to one skilled
in the art rules related to a specific aircraft. See id. Yet, “a description that
merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written
description] requirement.” AriadPharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Appellants also provide
examples of purported “craft-specific” rules, such as “the Boeing 747 could
be provided with rules that suppress the display on an airport diagram of
taxiways having a width of less than 75 feet.” App. Br. 13. Yet, this and the
other examples provided by Appellants (id.) are not in the disclosure. See
generally Spec.
Nor have Appellants demonstrated sufficiently one skilled in the art
would have reasonably found from the discussion of user-created rules in
13
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
paragraph 21 that the disclosure supports the recited “craft-specific rule” in
claim 21. See App. Br. 13. Although one skilled in the art may be aware of
differences in aircraft (see id.), Appellants have not demonstrated that one
skilled in the art would have reasonably found that the inventors had
possession of a “craft-specific rule” based on the Specification’s description,
including manufacturer-specific rules. See id. For example, one skilled in
the art would have recognized a manufacturer makes numerous aircraft (e.g.,
737, 747, and 787 by Boeing or C and CRJ series by Bombardier). Thus, a
user-defined rule by a manufacturer as described in the Specification is not
necessarily a “craft-specific rule” as recited, such that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have reasonably concluded the inventors had possession of the
claimed invention.
Lastly, the Specification states the database management system
(DBMS) 142 obtains additional aeronautical information for controlling the
display, but does not describe this information as a rule related or specific to
a craft. Spec. 124, Fig. 2. As such, the Specification does not describe in
sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably find that the
inventors had possession of the claimed “data based management system
that includes at least one craft-specific rule” as recited in independent claims
21, 25, and 28.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 21 and claims 22—31, which are not
separately argued.
14
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
III. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER DELERIS
Regarding independent claim 21, the Examiner finds that Deleris
discloses all its limitations, including a “state manager configured to
dynamically control the display of the real time navigational information on
the display system based on the at least one state variable for the craft and
the at least one craft-specific rule.” Final Act. 5—6 (citing Deleris 2:3—53,
4:3—53). Appellants argue Deleris does not disclose the above-quoted
limitation in claim 21. App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 5—6.
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding
Deleris discloses “state manager configured to dynamically control the
display of the real time navigational information on the display system based
on the at least one state variable for the craft and the at least one craft-
specific rule”?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 21. The Examiner states Deleris’s craft
environment (e.g., possible collision) is “at least one state variable.” Ans.
15. The Examiner also explains Deleris discloses adjusting a display based
on the environment and the required scaling is “at least one craft-specific
rule.” Id. (citing 6:45—56).
The Specification describes various “state variables.” Spec. 120.
State variables “may represent a wide variety of states including, e.g.,
aircraft altitude, current aircraft location, direction, air speed,. . . [and]
15
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
distance to a topographical feature . . . Id. Deleris discloses anticollision
system 16 for monitoring the trajectories of aircraft (e.g., means 3) and
representing the positions of aircrafts on a viewing screen with the aid of
altitude and distance (e.g., state variables as discussed in the Specification).
Deleris 4:4—8, 54—61, 5:6—15, Fig. 1. Deleris further discloses detecting the
need to change the display and scale based on analyzing a dangerous event
detected by monitoring means 3. Deleris 4:4—17, 41—49, Fig. 1.
As for the recitation “craft-specific rule,” we stated above that the
Specification does not provide sufficient examples of or support for this
recitation. Based on this understanding, one skilled in the art would not
construe the rules in the Specification as “craft-specific” rules. Spec. 120
(e.g., rule indicating when to display a symbol based on an aircraft’s
distance to an object described as “rules relating to state variable(s)”); see id.
28—30) (e.g., auto-zooming based on rules for different stages within a
mission or rule that displays a specific map when aircraft is in a certain
phase and at a given velocity).
We presume that the recited “craft-specific rule” has an ordinary
meaning of a rule related to a specific craft (e.g., a specific plane, boat, or
car).10 See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007). We, therefore, conclude the Examiner’s construction that a “craft-
specific rule” as recited “relate [s] to the operation of the craft” is overly
10 If prosecution continues, the Examiner should consider whether one
skilled in the art would understand the boundaries of “at least one craft-
specific rule” to be limited to (1) a particular craft model (see App. Br. 13
(discussing Boeing 737s and 747s)), (2) a particular craft series (e.g., CRJ
series by Bombardier), (3) a particular type of craft (e.g., an aircraft versus a
boat or car), or (4) something else (e.g., all crafts that are blue).
16
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
broad. Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, we agree the recited
“craft-specific rule” must differ from the recited “state variable” (see App.
Br. 14), which include an aircraft’s altitude, current location, direction air
speed, ground speed, distance to a topological feature, weather conditions,
and traffic frequency (Spec. 120). Even so, the broadly recited “craft-
specific rule” is not limited to the “aircraft being flown” (Reply Br. 5) or the
craft “displaying ... a user, context aware craft navigational information
during operation” recited in claim 21. App. Br. 17 (Claims App.).
Turning back to Deleris, Deleris discloses modifying display 2 (e.g.,
dynamically controlling) of navigational information by scaling (e.g., a rule)
a display when needed. Deleris 4:18-40, 6:45—56, Fig. 1. In particular,
Deleris discloses
[Processing unit 25 checks, by taking account of the current
scale of the navigation screen 2, and of the distance between the
aircraft equipped with the device 1 and the intruder aircraft,
whether the intruder aircraft is situated on the image displayed
by the navigation screen 2. If such is not the case, the
processing unit 25 selects a scale making it possible to
represent this intruder aircraft on the image displayed. . . .
Id. at 6:45—53 {cited in Ans. 15 (discussing this same passage)).
Deleris discloses a rule (e.g., scaling a display until an intruder aircraft
is displayed on a screen) specific to a craft’s status (e.g., whether or not the
intruder aircraft is on the screen’s display image) rather than a rule specific
to a craft, such as a characteristic that defines a specific aircraft (e.g., a
Boeing 747). See id. at 6:45—53. In particular, the aircraft’s status (e.g.,
whether the intruder aircraft is on the screen) is determined based on a
screen’s scale and distance between an aircraft and an intruder aircraft—
17
Appeal 2016-007860
Application 12/359,079
neither factor relating to a characteristic defining a specific craft or the
recited “at least one craft-specific rule” in claim 21.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the rejection of (1) independent claim 21, (2) independent claims 25 and 28,
which recite commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 22 and 24,
26, 27, and 29-31 for similar reasons.
IV. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claim 23 depends from claim 21 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) or § 103 as unpatentable over Deleris and Orf. Final
Act. 8; Ans. 7. Orf is not relied upon to teach the above-noted deficiency.
Final Act. 8. We will not sustain this rejection for the above reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of (1) claims 21—31 under § 101,
and (2) claims 21—31 under § 112(a) or § 112, first paragraph (pre-AIA).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claims 28 and 31 under
§ 112(a) or § 112, first paragraph (pre-AIA) (regarding the “computer
readable storage medium”), and (2) claims 21, 22, and 24—31 under § 102,
and (3) claim 23 under § 103.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
18