Ex Parte Dunsdon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13022806 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
13/022,806 02/08/2011 Jonathan Mark Dunsdon 246644 (12729-897) 7427
29399 7590 09/25/2017
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (12729)
Global Patent Operation-Aviation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
INGRAM, THOMAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN MARK DUNSDON and MARK THOMSON
Appeal 2017-003881
Application 13/022,806
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 7—14, 16, 17, and 20-25, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 6, 15, 18, and 19 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1,7, and 14 are independent and all pertain to routing data in
an aircraft environment using communications protocols (Spec. 1—5;
Abstract). The disclosed invention includes a switch, Integrated Modular
Avionics (IMA) unit for collecting sensor data from aircraft components,
and an Onboard Maintenance System (OMS) for collecting and storing
aircraft data extracted from the IMA to be used to refine aircraft and guide
future designs. Spec. Tflf 1—3; claim 1. Appellants disclose a switch 110
(Fig. 1) for communicating and routing aircraft data about aircraft
components 108 from IMA 104 to OMS 114 using first and second
protocols. Spec. 16—18. The second protocol used may be Institute of
Electrical Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 or a variant thereof. Spec. |
17. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with emphases added:
1. An aircraft communication system, comprising:
a switch, communicatively coupled to an aircraft
component, configured to route data from the aircraft
component via a first communications protocol and a
second communications protocol;
an Integrated Modular Avionics unit configured to
receive the data via the first communications protocol; and
2
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
an Onboard Maintenance System configured to receive
the data via the second communications protocol.
Remaining independent claims 7 (aircraft communications switch)
and 14 (method of communicating data on board an aircraft) recite similar
limitations as recited in claim 1 (using communications protocols to
communicate/route data).
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—5, 7—14, 16, 17, 20-22, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
West et al. (US 8,452,475 Bl; issued May 28, 2013 and filed Oct. 2, 2009)
(hereinafter, “West”) and Candia et al. (US 2011/0154108 Al; published
June 23, 2011 and filed Dec. 16, 2010) (hereinafter, “Candia”). Final Act.
5—9. The Examiner relies upon (i) West as teaching an IMA unit for
receiving aircraft sensor data via a first protocol, and an OMS for receiving
the data via a second protocol; and (ii) Candia as teaching a switch for use in
a computer network in an aircraft that routes data to multiple locations.
Final Act. 6—7.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of West, Candia, and Alena
(Richard L. Alena et al., Communications for Integrated Modular Avionics,
IEEE Aerospace Conference 1-19 (2007)) (hereinafter, “Alena”). Final
Act. 9—11. The Examiner additionally relies upon (iii) Alena as teaching the
communication of aircraft data using IEEE 802.3 Ethernet protocol. Final
Act. 10-11.
3
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
Principal Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 11—25) in
response to the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 5—11), the following two
principal issues are presented on appeal:1
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 3—5, 7—14, 16, 17,
20—22, and 24 over the base combination of West and Candia; and (ii)
claims 23 and 25 over the same base combination modified by Alena,
because the base combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of “a switch,” “an Integrated Modular Avionics unit,” and “an
Onboard Maintenance System,” as recited in representative independent
claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting dependent claims 5 and 12 over
the combination of West and Candia because the combination fails to teach
or suggest the disputed limitation of communicating a command, as recited
in claims 5 and 12?
1 Appellants argue claims 1, 3—5, 7—14, 16, 17, 20-22, and 24 as a group,
arguing only the merits of claim 1 (Br. 12—22), and rely on these arguments
for the patentability of remaining independent claims 7 and 14 (see Br. 19,
21). Independent claims 1, 7, and 14 each recite similar limitations
pertaining to routing data in an aircraft environment using communications
protocols. Appellants provide separate arguments as to dependent claims 5
and 12. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims 1,3,4, 7—11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20—22, and 24 rejected over West and
Candia. Appellants rely on the arguments presented as to claim 1 for the
patentability of claims 23 and 25, and additionally argue Alena does not cure
the deficiencies of West and Candia (see Br. 23—24). In view of the
foregoing, we will decide the outcome of claims 23 and 25 on the same basis
as representative independent claim 1.
4
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 5—11) in light
of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 11—25) that the Examiner
has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in
the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—6).
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments as to (i) independent claim 1;
and (ii) dependent claims 5 and 12. With regard to (i) representative
independent claim 1; and (ii) dependent claims 5 and 12, we adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6—8), and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’
Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—6). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and
suggestions of the references as follows.
Issue One: Representative Claim 1
Appellants’ arguments presented as to each individual reference (see
Br. 13—21) are not persuasive inasmuch as the Examiner relies on a properly
made combination of West and Candia to support the conclusion of
obviousness of the subject matter of independent claim 1. Appellants have
not rebutted or otherwise shown the Examiner’s explanation of the
combination of the collective teachings and suggestions of the applied
references (see Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 3—6) made in response to the
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (regarding the references
individually or in pairs) to be in error. Appellants do not refute the
Examiner’s responses in the Answer (Ans. 2—6) by additional evidence or
argument.
5
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
In this light, Appellants’ arguments as to representative independent claim 1
(Br. 13—21) concerning the individual shortcomings in the teachings of West
and Candia are not persuasive, and are not convincing of the non­
obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in representative independent
claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings as to West and Candia (Final
Act. 6—7), namely that West teaches (i) an Information Management System
(IMS) (Fig. 4, element 402) that is the functional equivalent of the recited
switch for routing aircraft data via first and second protocols (Ans. 2—5;
Final Act. 6); (ii) an avionics system (Fig. 4, element 404) and avionics
network (Fig. 4, element 410) that are the functional equivalent of the
recited IMA unit for receiving aircraft data in the first protocol; and (iii) an
OMS (Fig. 4, element 406) for receiving the data via a second protocol
(Final Act. 7). We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that Candia
teaches a switch (Abstract, switch 42) for use in a computer network on
board an aircraft that routes data to multiple locations (Final Act. 7; Ans. 5),
as recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 3, 4, 7—11,
13, 14, 16, 17, and 20-22, and 24 grouped therewith. For similar reasons,
and because (i) claims 23 and 25 each ultimately depend from claims 1 and
6
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
7, therefore, contain all of the salient limitations; and (ii) Appellants argue
claims 23 and 25 for similar reasons as claims 1 and 7 (see Br. 23—24), we
also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 23
and 25.
Issue Two: Dependent Claims 5 and 12
Appellants’ argument (Br. 22—23) that West fails to teach or suggest
communicating commands using a protocol as claimed is not persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 8; Ans. 6) that column 8 of West
(describing Figure 4) describes “that the avionics system includes
subsystems such as aircraft flight control systems, a fly-by-wire system, a
collision avoidance system, etc.” and that West therefore teaches or suggests
a flight control system that receives aircraft data and makes adjustments by
way of sending commands to change operations of the aircraft such as
aileron adjustments, elevator adjustments, etc. (Ans. 6; see West, col. 8,11.
7—16). Appellants do not refute the Examiner’s response in the Answer
(Ans. 6) by additional evidence or argument.
Furthermore, West discloses (i) an avionics network 410
communicating with avionics system 404 and IMS 402 over a bus in an
aircraft 102 (col. 8,11. 52—57); as well as (ii) communicating “via one or
more standard or proprietary protocols” (col. 8,11. 57—59). Notably, West
discloses using ARINC and Airbus’ Avionics Full Duplex Switched
Ethernet (AFDX) protocols as do Appellants (compare West, col. 8,11. 59—
62 with Spec. 115). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 8;
Ans. 6) that West teaches or suggests communicating commands over an
avionics network/system.
7
Appeal 2010-003230
Application 11/045,514
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s findings as to claims 5 and 12, and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 3—5, 7—14, 16, 17,
and 20—22, and 24 over the combination of West and Candia; and (ii) claims
23 and 25 over the same base combination modified Alena, because the base
combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of “a switch,” “an
Integrated Modular Avionics unit,” and “an Onboard Maintenance System,”
as recited in representative independent claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5 and 12 over the
combination of West and Candia, because West, and thus, the combination
teaches or suggests communicating commands, as recited in dependent
claims 5 and 12.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—5, 7—14, 16, 17, and 20-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
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
8