Ex Parte Conner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

11625764 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2017)

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.
11/625,764 01/22/2007 Kevin J Conner H0013785 (002.2761) 9046
89955 7590 04/27/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
MILLER, SAMANTHA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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 @ honey well, com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN J. CONNER, YASUO ISHIHARA, and
STEVE C. JOHNSON
Appeal 2015-002358
Application 11/625,764
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, JILL D. HILL, ERIC C. JESCHKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kevin J. Conner et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—11. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-002358
Application 11/625,764
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1 and 7 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention, with a key disputed
limitation italicized.
1. A cabin pressure alerting system comprising:
a cabin altimeter configured to generate a cabin pressure
value;
an alerting device; and
a processing device in data communication with the
cabin altimeter and the alerting device, the processing device
comprising:
a first component configured to determine if there
is a problem with the cabin pressure based on the
generated cabin pressure value;
a second component configured to determine rate
of change of the cabin pressure;
a third component configured to set at least one of
an alert volume or an alert frequency based on the rate of
change of the cabin pressure if it was determined by the
first component that a problem exists with the cabin
pressure,
a fourth component configured to issue a cabin
depressurization alert over the alerting device based on at
least one of the set alert volume or alert frequency, if
there is a problem with the cabin pressure value;
wherein the second and third components repeat
operations until the first component determines that there
is no longer a problem with the cabin pressure,
wherein the first component determines if a
problem with the cabin pressure still exists after issuance
of the cabin depressurization alert and
wherein the third component alters at least one of
the volume or frequency of the previously set alert
volume or frequency, if the first component determines a
problem with the cabin pressure still exists after issuance
of the cabin depressurization alert.
2
Appeal 2015-002358
Application 11/625,764
REJECTION
Claims 1—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Homer (US 6,737,988 B2, iss. May 18, 2004) and Yamamoto (US
2003/0081812 Al, pub. May 1, 2003). Final Act. 2.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Homer discloses, inter alia, “a third
component configured to set at least one of an alert volume or an alert
frequency (122, col.6 11.1-5, col.7 11.1-9, 36-55) based on the rate of change
of the cabin pressure.” Final Act. 2.
Appellants argue that Homer and Yamamoto fail to teach or suggest
setting an alert volume or frequency based on a determined rate of change of
cabin pressure. Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellants, Homer discloses
both setting a cabin pressure alert (Homer 7:1—9, 36—55) and determining a
cabin pressure rate of change (Homer 6:1—5), but does not disclose setting
the cabin pressure alert based on the cabin pressure rate of change. Id.
Homer discloses a primary cabin pressure signal (PC PRIMARY), a
secondary cabin pressure signal (PC SECONDARY), and an atmospheric
pressure signal (PA) that output, inter alia, a cabin pressure rate of change
(PC RATE) to memory and a discrete output processing logic that may
output a high altitude warning. Homer, Fig. 1, 6:1—20. Although Homer
discloses that “the processor 112 supplies signals representative of. . . cabin
pressure altitude rate of change . . . and high cabin altitude warning” (Homer
6:1—5), Homer never discloses that the high cabin altitude warning signal is
based on the cabin pressure altitude rate of change signal. Indeed, Homer
specifically states that the processor 112 uses “primary cabin pressure (Pc
3
Appeal 2015-002358
Application 11/625,764
Primary) or secondary cabin pressure (Pc Secondary), in combination with
the determined atmospheric pressure (Pa),... to generate discrete logic
signals such as a high cabin altitude warning signal.” Homer 6:10—20.
Thus, although Homer’s processor both (1) determines cabin pressure
altitude rate of change and (2) generates a high cabin altitude warning signal,
Homer is silent regarding issuance of its high cabin altitude warning signal
being based on the cabin pressure altitude rate of change.
The Examiner contends that Homer teaches component 112 uses the
primary or secondary cabin pressure to determine cabin altitude pressure rate
of change to generate a high cabin altitude warning signal. Ans. 6. This
finding, however, is erroneous, because Homer instead teaches component
112 uses the primary or secondary cabin pressure and atmospheric pressure
to independently (1) determine cabin altitude pressure rate of change and (2)
generate a high cabin altitude warning signal. Homer 6:1—20.
Because this finding is in error, prima facie obviousness has not been
established, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over Homer and Yamamoto. Claims 2—6 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection thereof for the same reason.
Similar to claim 1, independent claim 7 recites “determining rate of change
of the cabin pressure value,” and “setting at least one of alert volume or alert
frequency based on the determined rate of change.” Because we disagree
with the Examiner’s finding that Homer discloses setting an alert volume or
frequency based on cabin pressure rate of change, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 7 as unpatentable over Homer and
Yamamoto. Claims 8—11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 7, and we
do not sustain the rejection thereof for the same reason.
4
Appeal 2015-002358
Application 11/625,764
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Homer and Yamamoto.
REVERSED
5