Ex Parte Beacham, Jr. et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2014

12197354 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM H. BEACHAM, JR.,
DAVID M. MATTEI, and PAUL RAYMOND SCHEID
____________________

Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to a method of communicating with an
avionics box via text messaging. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of communicating with an aircraft,
comprising:
receiving a text message with an aircraft avionics box;
and
initiating an operation with the aircraft avionics box
based on the text message.

Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections of claims 1–16 in the
Answer:
Claims 1–5 and 7–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gross (US 6,507,739 B1, issued Jan. 14, 2003) and
Molsberry (US 2008/0144617 A1, published June 19, 2008). Ans. 4–9.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gross, Molsberry, and Vazvan (US 2006/0052095 A1, published Mar. 9,
2006). Ans. 9.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gross and
Molsberry teaches the limitation of “text message” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

3
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gross and
Molsberry teaches initiation of an operation with the aircraft avionics box
based on the message, as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in combining Gross and Molsberry, because
there is no reason to combine the references and because Molsberry changes
the principle of operation and frustrates the intended purpose of Gross?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gross and
Molsberry teaches the limitation of “short message service communication”
recited in dependent claims 2, 8, 9, and 14?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gross and
Molsberry teaches that the cellular modem is part of an avionics box
onboard an aircraft, as required by dependent claims 3, 4, and 10–12?
Did the Examiner err in concluding that dependent claim 6 is obvious,
because there is no reason to modify Gross and Molsberry to include
Vazvan’s teaching that “the text message is selected from a list of multiple
text messages stored on a cellular device,” as recited in claim 6?

ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 7, and 13
Appellants argue that Gross and Molsberry do not teach text
messages, which are recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 13. Appeal Br.
4–6.
Gross teaches “[a] cellular communications network (200, FIG. 2)
includes one or more aircraft (210), which provide communication channels
to cellular communications units, and also communicate with one or more
base transceiver stations (206) and a control center (214).” Gross Abstract.
Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

4
As found by the Examiner, Gross specifically teaches that Subsystem Status
and Control (“SS&C”) equipment that is part of the network can send
control messages to the aircraft, and that “aircraft 402 would respond by
altering the appropriate flight parameter or cellular beam pattern, in
accordance with the message.” Gross col. 10, ll. 63–65. Gross does not
specify the format of these messages.
The Examiner finds (Ans. 5) that Molsberry teaches “a standard
communication system known as ACARS (Aircraft Communication
Addressing and Reporting System).” Molsberry ¶ 2. “ACARS is a digital
data link system used to transmit short messages between aircraft and
ground stations via any of various wireless communication interfaces . . . .”
Id. Molsberry specifies that these messages may comprise text:
Each message comprises Short Burst Data (SBD) which is a
format that utilizes data packets no greater than 1960 bytes in
length, or about 220 characters. The messages may comprise a
variety of information or data such as the maintenance
information mentioned above, take-off times, location reports,
passenger information, etc.
Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to transmit short
text messages as done in Molsberry using the Gross system. Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that a “text message” as claimed must involve a
cellular communication protocol because the Specification provides Short
Message Service (SMS) as an example of a text message. Appeal Br. 6.
Molsberry’s short burst data, Appellants argue, does not involve such a
protocol, and therefore does not teach a “text message” as claimed. Id. We
agree with the Examiner that the term “text message,” as claimed broadly in
the independent claims, is reasonably interpreted as a message containing
Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

5
text. See Ans. 10–11. Molsberry undisputedly teaches such a message.
Appellants’ interpretation improperly imports limitations from the written
description and dependent claims into the independent claims. Although
giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take into account
any definitions given in the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from
examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that even if the term “text
message” were interpreted more narrowly to involve cellular communication
protocol, such text messages are taught by the combined teachings of Gross
and Molsberry. See Ans. 11. As the Examiner points out, Gross teaches a
cellular communication network including one or more aircraft that
communicate with other devices in the cellular network using cellular
protocol. Id. at 12–13. Incorporating Molsberry’s teaching of a short text
message with 220 characters or less in length, which the Examiner
concludes would have been obvious, results in a short text message
involving cellular communication protocol, such as SMS communications.
Appellants also argue that Gross and Molsberry do not teach initiation
of an operation with the aircraft avionics box based on the message. Appeal
Br. 6–7. Gross’s teachings belie Appellants’ assertion. For example, Gross
teaches “[u]pon the aircraft’s receipt of a control message from SS&C 430,
aircraft 402 would respond by altering the appropriate flight parameter or
cellular beam pattern, in accordance with the message.” Gross col. 10, ll.
61–65. These messages are received by the aircraft payload, which includes
antennas, amplifiers, and converters for communication with ground
Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

6
equipment, other aircraft systems, and mobile communication units. See
Gross col. 4, ll. 47–52; col. 9, ll. 52–55; col. 9, l. 66–col. 10, l. 2; col. 10, ll.
58–65; Fig. 4. “The payload also includes computing equipment that
functions to control the payload antennas, converters, and other equipment,”
Gross col. 4, ll. 52–54, such as for altering the cellular beam pattern based
on a message received from the control center. The payload is in
communication with the Aircraft Flight Management System (AFMS 410),
which “measures and controls the aircraft’s flight parameters.” Gross col. 9,
ll. 50–51; see also Gross col. 9, ll. 52–55; col. 9, l. 66–col. 10, l. 2; col. 10,
ll. 58–65; Fig. 4. Appellants’ assertion that in Gross “[t]here is no
interaction between the payload and the aircraft avionics box,” Appeal Br. 6,
is thus incorrect. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of
aircraft avionics box as “any onboard electronic system on the aircraft for
communication and navigation,” Ans. 5, which includes the payload. We
are not persuaded otherwise by Appellants’ unsupported statement that
“[t]he aircraft payload 412 is not an avionics box.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellants further contend that there is “no reason to modify Gross to
include text messaging communications because Gross is designed to
operate in areas having insufficient cellular communication capability,” and
that one of skill in the art would not “communicate using text messages
when the cellular communication network is unreliable.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellants also argue that if Gross were modified to include text messages
then the aircraft would have to avoid areas with questionable communication
capability and would thus be rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
and its principle of operation would be changed.
Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

7
We are not persuaded. The aircraft in Gross carries the necessary
transceivers to increase capacity or plug any gaps in the cellular
communication network. See Gross col. 2, ll. 54–60 (“The methods and
apparatus of the present invention are implemented in a cellular
communications network that can rapidly respond to changing capacity
demands. This is accomplished, in several embodiments of the present
invention, by a cellular communications network that integrates airborne
transceivers with current terrestrial cellular network networks.”). That is its
purpose. There is no suggestion in Gross that communication is unreliable
with the aircraft deployed. The premise of Appellants’ argument is thus
incorrect. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use short text messages in the Gross system in
order to minimize resource use. See Ans. 5.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 7,
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gross and Molsberry.

Dependent Claims 5, 15, and 16
No separate arguments are provided for dependent claims 5, 15, or 16.
See Appeal Br. 9, 10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 15,
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gross and Molsberry
for the same reasons discussed above for independent claims 1, 7, and 13.

Dependent Claims 2, 8, 9, and 14
Appellants argue separately that Gross and Molsberry do not teach or
suggest the “short message service communication” recited in claims 2, 8, 9,
and 14. Appeal Br. 8, 9. Appellants argue that Molsberry teaches Short
Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

8
Burst Data messages, and that these are not cellular SMS communications.
Id. Appellants essentially attack the references individually, rather than
address the combined teachings of Gross and Molsberry as in the rejection.
As discussed above in relation to the independent claims, the Examiner finds
that Gross teaches a cellular communication network including one or more
aircraft that communicate with other devices in the cellular network using
cellular protocol. Ans. 12–13. Incorporating Molsberry’s teaching of a
short text message, with 220 characters or less in length, results in a short
text message involving cellular communication protocol, such as SMS
communications.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 2, 8, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gross
and Molsberry.

Dependent Claims 3, 4, and 10–12
Appellants argue that dependent claims 3, 4, and 10–12 are patentable
because the Examiner relies on the “cellular communication unit” in Gross
as teaching the cellular modem of the claims, but the cellular communication
unit is not onboard an aircraft and, therefore, not an aircraft avionics box.
Appeal Br. 9–10. We do not interpret the Examiner’s rejection to consider
the cellular communication unit in Gross to be the cellular modem onboard
the aircraft. The Examiner cites Gross, column 4, lines 1–16, and column
10, lines 61–65, as teaching the cellular modem within the aircraft avionics
box operative to send and receive messages. Ans. 8. The passage at column
4 refers to the cellular communication units along with several other
components of the airborne cellular communications network, including the
Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

9
payload. See Gross col. 4, ll. 1–16. The aircraft payload “acts as a
transceiver or repeater between the network’s [Aircraft Radio Terminals]
220 (and, thus [Base Transceiver Station] 206) and multiple cellular
communication units,” Gross col. 4, ll. 14–16, and also receives the
messages referred to in column 10, lines 61–65 of Gross. The payload is a
communication box onboard the aircraft. See Gross col. 4, l. 14; col. 4, ll.
47–54; col. 9, ll. 22–23; col. 9, l. 66–col. 10, l. 2.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 10–12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gross and Molsberry.

Dependent Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and adds that “the text message is
selected from a list of multiple text messages stored on a cellular device.”
Appellants do not dispute that Vazvan teaches selecting a text message from
a list stored on a cellular device, but argue that there is no reason to modify
Gross and Molsberry to include this feature because “[n]o avionics box in
Gross acts based on messages.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants similarly argue
in support of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 that Gross does not teach an
avionics box that acts based on messages. For the same reasons that we
sustain the rejection of the independent claims, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gross,
Molsberry, and Vazvan.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in: finding that the combination of Gross
and Molsberry teaches the limitation of “text message” as recited in claim 1;
Appeal 2012-007464
Application 12/197,354

10
finding that the combination of Gross and Molsberry teaches initiation of an
operation with the aircraft avionics box based on the message, as recited in
claim 1; combining Gross and Mosberry; finding that the combination of
Gross and Molsberry teaches the limitation of “short message service
communication” recited in claims 2, 8, 9, and 14; finding that the
combination of Gross and Molsberry teaches that the cellular modem is part
of an avionics box onboard an aircraft, as required by dependent claims 3, 4,
and 10–12; concluding that claim 6 is obvious.

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record in light of Appellants’ contentions,
we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
llw