Ex Parte Herzberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2018

14262746 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/262,746 04/26/2014
63759 7590 07/18/2018
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Garry Gean Herzberg
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.
10-0890-US-CNT 9315
EXAMINER
HO,RUAYL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2018 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARRY GEAN HERZBERG,
TIMOTHY EDWARD JACKSON, TRACY ANDREW SMALL,
CHARLES DANIEL COWLES, ERIN ELIZABETH WARR,
ALLEN R. LINK, and MARK D. MCCLEARY
Appeal2018-001200
Application 14/262,746
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10--12, 14, 15, 18-22, 24--26, 28-32, and
34--36, which constitute all claims pending in the current application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-001200
Application 14/262,746
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to diagnosing the status of system
functions in a complex system and presenting the status to a user via a user
interface. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for system diagnosis and status reporting, comprising:
receiving, by a processor unit, network traffic from a data
network, wherein the network traffic is placed on the data network by
a number of systems and wherein the number of systems perform a
number of functions for a complex system;
receiving, by the processor unit, a view selection, wherein the
view selection identifies rules for determining a status of selected ones
of the number of functions from the network traffic;
responsive to receiving the view selection, determining, by the
processor unit, the status of the selected ones of the number of
functions from the network traffic using the rules;
providing, by a fiber media converter, an interface between a
cart and the number of systems; and
providing, by the processor unit, the status of the selected ones
of the number of functions to a user interface on the cart.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19-22, 24, 25, 29-32, and 34--
36 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Law et al. (US 2011/0072506 Al; published Mar.
24, 2011) ("Law") and Chan et al. (US 2012/0027415 Al; published Feb.
12, 2012) ("Chan").
2
Appeal2018-001200
Application 14/262,746
Claims 3, 5, 18, 26, and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Law, Chan, and
Cometti et al. (US 2012/0239976 Al; published Sep. 20, 2012) ("Cometti").
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue both Law and Chan are "silent in regard to a 'cart."'
App. Br. 8. According to Appellants, a 'cart' is the same as a 'mobile cart'
which is a 'mobile structure."' App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. ,r,r 80, 103); see
also Reply Br. 2 ("a 'cart' is identified as a specific type of 'mobile
structure."'), Reply Br. 3 ("the cart is mobile and can carry the system").
Appellants argue the Examiner's "position that the cart is an electronic
device has not support either in the plain meaning of the term or in the
description of the cart in the Specification" and "a 'mobile structure' cannot
reasonably be construed to be an electronic device." App. Br. 11.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they do not address
the combination of references as relied upon by the Examiner and do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings. Specifically, the Examiner finds
"the 'workstation' of Law and the 'electronic device' of Chan function as a
'cart' as recited." Final Act. 5. The Examiner construes a "'cart' to be 'a
mobile device with a graphical user interface' since a status diagnosis
presentation system can be implemented on it." Ans. 13. The Examiner
finds "both the workstation [ of Law] and electronic device [ of Chan] are
mobile devices, and both have graphical interfaces." Ans. 13.
Appellants' arguments are directed to the electronic device taught in
the Chan reference and do not persuasively address the Examiner's findings
with respect to the workstation taught Law or why the combination of Chan
3
Appeal2018-001200
Application 14/262,746
and Law does not teach or suggest a "cart." Nor do Appellants persuasively
address why the Examiner's construction of a "cart" is unreasonable. For
example, contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner has not construed
a "cart" or "mobile structure" to be an electronic device. App. Br. 11.
Rather, the Examiner has construed a "cart" to be a "mobile device with a
graphical user interface," and found the workstation of Law and electronic
device in Chan teach a mobile device with a graphical user interface. See
Ans. 13. Appellants do not explain how the Examiner's construction differs
from their own construction of a "cart" as a "specific type of mobile
structure," or why Chan's electronic device and Law's workstation do not
teach a "mobile structure." See Reply Br. 2, App. Br. 10.
Moreover, Appellants' arguments focus on the mobility of the cart,
e.g., "the cart is mobile and can carry the system" and "it is the movement of
the cart to the aircraft that enables the interface for the 'connections between
the cart and the aircraft systems."' Reply Br. 4. Even if we found
Appellants' arguments persuasive, we note that it has been held that "it is
not regarded as inventive to merely make an old device portable or movable
without producing any new and unexpected result." Application of
Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 735 (C.C.P.A. 1952). Here, the claimed "cart"
merely adds mobility.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellants
present similar arguments for claims 7, 8, 21, and 24 (App. Br. 11 ), which
we are not persuaded by for the same reasons. Appellants do not separately
argue dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 10-12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30,
32, and 34--36. App. Br. 12. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35
4
Appeal2018-001200
Application 14/262,746
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26,
28, 29, 30, 32, and 34--36.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein the cart is a
mobile cart." Appellants argue "the Examiner's argument is not based on a
reasonable construction of 'cart,' as described in the specification" and
"there is no support in the specification for a construction of 'cart' as an
electronic device, and the same is true for a 'mobile cart."' App. Br. 12.
For the same reasons as set forth above, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 3, 18,
26, and 28. App. Br. 12. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 5.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-
12, 14, 15, 18-22, 24--26, 28-32, and 34--36 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
5