Ex Parte Burgin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2016

13196360 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/196,360
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
08/02/2011
06/10/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roger W. Burgin
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0031191 (002.2629) 3672
EXAMINER
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER W. BURGIN, PRAM OD KUMAR MAL VIY A,
DA VE PEPITONE, and KEITH HUGHES
Appeal 2014-0040241,2
Application 13/196,3 60
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Aug. 2,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Oct. 2, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Jan. 9, 2014), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed May 3, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed Nov. 18, 2013).
2 According to Appellants, "Honeywell International, Inc .... is the real
party in interest." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004024
Application 13/196,3 60
According to Appellants, the invention "relates to a system and
method for displaying a procedure to an aircrew member." Spec. i-f 1. We
reproduce independent claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed
claims.
1. A system for displaying a procedure to an aircrew
member of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a moving map display subsystem configured to display a
map that moves in a manner that corresponds with a movement
of the aircraft;
a position detecting subsystem that is configured to detect
a current location of the aircraft with respect to a ground surface
and to generate a first signal indicative of the current location of
the aircraft;
a flight management subsystem configured to determine a
flight path that will be taken by the aircraft and to generate a
second signal indicative of the flight path of the aircraft;
an electronic storage unit configured to store a plurality of
navigation procedures associated with a corresponding plurality
of geographic locations, each navigation procedure
representative of a navigation procedure contained on a paper-
based chart; and
a processor operatively coupled with the moving map
display subsystem, the position detecting subsystem, the flight
management subsystem, and the electronic storage unit,
wherein the processor is configured to receive the first
signal from the position detecting subsystem and to receive the
second signal from the flight management subsystem, to retrieve
a navigation procedure from the electronic storage unit, the
navigation procedure corresponding with the current location of
the aircraft and the flight path of the aircraft, and the processor is
further configured to command the moving map display
subsystem to display, on the map, a graphic depiction of an actual
flight path that the aircraft will take when executing the retrieved
navigation procedure.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
2
Appeal2014-004024
Application 13/196,3 60
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Spinelli (US 2011/0264312 Al, pub. Oct. 27, 2011) and
Prinzel (US 2008/0195309 Al, pub. Aug. 14, 2008). See Final Action 2-6.
ANALYSIS3
Independent claim 1, from which claims 2-18 depend, recites a
system for displaying a procedure to an aircrew member of an aircraft,
comprising "an electronic storage unit configured to store a plurality of
navigation procedures associated with a corresponding plurality of
geographic locations, each navigation procedure representative of a
navigation procedure contained on a paper-based chart," as well as a
processor that retrieves a navigation procedure (based on information from a
position detecting subsystem and a flight management subsystem) and
3 An "attorney[] ... [is] required to conduct [his or her] business with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office with decorum and courtesy.
Papers presented in violation of this requirement will be submitted to the
Director and will not be entered." 37 C.F.R. § 1.3. In this case, the panel
does not appreciate the characterization by Appellants' attorney of the
"[E]xaminer's logic" as "sadly puerile" (Reply Br. 5), the panel's assurance
that the attorney's "breath will not be held" until the Examiner provides the
requested precedent (id.), or numerous other sarcastic or rude statements
made by the attorney in the Reply Brief, such as but not limited to "Oh
really?" (id. at 3), "The [E]xaminer has sidestepped this argument with
obfuscation" (id. at 6), "the standard that the [E]xaminer proffers as a reason
to combine references is one with which the undersigned is wholly
unfamiliar[-]the ol' 'similar devices for use in implementing a general
function' reason" (id. at 7), and "Come on. Seriously?" (id.). The panel
gives the attorney the benefit of the doubt that he is not in violation of the
above-cited rule.
3
Appeal2014-004024
Application 13/196,3 60
displays (on a moving map display subsystem) an actual flight path that the
aircraft will take when executing the retrieved navigation procedure. Appeal
Br., Claims App.
With respect to the claimed electronic storage of navigation
procedures, the Examiner finds that Spinelli's paragraph 39 discloses "an
electronic storage unit configured to store a plurality of navigation
procedures associated with a corresponding plurality of geographic
locations" (Final Action 3), and that Prinzel's paragraphs 6 and 7 disclose
"navigation procedure[s] [that are] contained on a paper-based chart" (id.;
see also Answer 2-3). Appellants argue that neither Spinelli nor Prinzel,
alone or in combination, discloses electronic storage of navigation
procedures associated with geographic locations. See, e.g., Reply Br. 3; see
also, e.g., Appeal Br. 11-12. Based on our review of the record, we
determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the
Examiner's findings that the prior art teaches the claimed electronic storage
of multiple navigation procedures associated with multiple geographic
locations.
Specifically, we find that it is not clear that the noted portion of
Spinelli discloses storing different navigation procedures associated with
different geographic locations. Spinelli i-f 39. Rather, it appears that this
portion of Spinelli at most discloses, in relevant part, "execut[ion] of a
model generation cycle during which [a] performance model 134 is
determined and stored," without stating, for example, that the model is even
associated with a geographic location. Further, even assuming that
Spinelli' s performance model meets the claim requirements of being a
navigation procedure associated with a geographical location, there is still no
4
Appeal2014-004024
Application 13/196,3 60
indication that Spinelli stores multiple navigation procedures associated with
multiple geographic locations, as required by claim 1. To the extent that the
Examiner relies on Prinzel's paragraphs 6 and 7 to remedy deficiencies
related to the claimed electronic storage of navigation procedures, neither
paragraph of Prinzel teaches electronically storing multiple navigation
procedures associated with multiple geographic locations, as claimed. See
Final Action 3; see also Answer 2-3. Nor does the Examiner conclude that
such would have been an obvious modification to the combination of
Spinelli and Prinzel.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-18. Inasmuch as independent claim 19, from which claim 20
depend, recites similar features, we also do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 19 and 20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
5