Ex Parte Horvath

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2013

11875662 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN M. HORVATH
____________

Appeal 2011-004880
Application 11/875,662
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-20. App. Br. 1-2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-004880
Application 11/875,662

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of communicating with a fleet of vehicles, the
method comprising:
designating a first vehicle of a fleet to be a fleet router,
the fleet including a plurality of vehicles;
routing long range communication through the fleet
router, where any long range communication between
individual vehicles within the fleet and any communication
point outside of the fleet are routed through the fleet router; and
forming an ad-hoc communication network with the
plurality of vehicles of the fleet to communicate communication
signals between the plurality of vehicles in the fleet, wherein
each vehicle in the fleet uses detected surveillance information
to determine the network topology and each vehicle routes
messages based on the discovered network topology.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jamalipour (WO 2007/059560 A1; pub. May 31, 2007)
and Ayyagari (US 6,018,659; iss. Jan. 25, 2000).
Claims 3, 4, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jamalipour, Ayyagari, and Holder (US 7,085,562 B1; iss.
Aug. 1, 2006).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jamalipour, Ayyagari, and Hudson (US 2005/0232185
A1; iss. Oct. 20, 2005).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jamalipour, Ayyagari, Holder, and Hudson.

Appeal 2011-004880
Application 11/875,662

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 12 as unpatentable over Jamalipour and Ayyagari
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, and 5-8 and claims 9 and 12 as separate
groups. App. Br. 6-12. We select claims 1 and 9 as representative claims of
each group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claims 1, 2, 5-8
The Examiner found that Jamalipour teaches communicating with a
fleet of vehicles but does not designate a vehicle of the fleet as a fleet router
for long range communication between individual vehicles of the fleet and a
communication point outside of the fleet. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found
that Ayyagari teaches a constellation of airborne vehicles (AVs) that forms
an ad hoc network and provides a high capacity point-to-point link between
the constellation and a satellite or terrestrial base station for the AVs inside
the network. Ans. 4, 15-17. The Examiner also found that Ayyagari teaches
that one or more AVs in the constellation can communicate with an outside
communication point such as an Operations Control Center (OCC) 105 to
maintain a high capacity point-to-point line for high capacity communication
of the constellation. Ans. 15-16. The Examiner further found that Ayyagari
teaches that mobile units are part of the constellation and communicate with
outside communication points via an AV. The Examiner interpreted the
limitation “any long range communication” to “any communication point
outside the fleet” as not requiring that all long range communication to all
communication points outside the fleet occur through a fleet router. Ans. 16.
Appellant argues that Ayyagari does not teach or suggest that “any
long range communication between individual vehicles within the fleet and
any communication point outside of the fleet are routed through the fleet
Appeal 2011-004880
Application 11/875,662

4
router” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellant asserts that Ayyagari
teaches that each AV in the constellation can independently connect and
communicate with mobile units outside of the constellation and each AV
remains over a fixed geographical area to service various mobile units in a
fixed geographical area in a cellular fashion that allows mobile units to
connect to one AV in a constellation and communicate with mobile units
connected to other AVs through the constellation. App. Br. 9-10. Appellant
further argues that “any” should be construed to mean that all long range
communication that occurs must be routed through the fleet router, not just
“some” long range communication. Reply Br. 1.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because Ayyagari discloses
a deployed group of airborne vehicles (AVs) 106 that link wirelessly to one
or more neighboring AVs to form an airborne inter-networked constellation
106 and one or more AVs 106 maintain a point-to-point link for long-range
communications outside the constellation’s aggregate coverage area 120, as
illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Ayyagari, col. 4, ll. 45-58. Thus, Ayyagari
discloses that one AV 106 may maintain a long range communication link to
a communication point(s) such as OCC 105, gateway 110, or satellite 114, or
more than one AV 106 may maintain a long range communication link to a
communication point. Where a single AV 106 provides all of the long range
communication to one or more communication points, the AV serves as a
fleet router for the constellation. Figure 1 of Ayyagari also illustrates a
single AV 106 providing all long range communications for a constellation
108 of AVs with a communication point such as OCC 105, gateway 110, or
satellite 114 and teaches that the constellation may connect to a single point.
Col. 5, ll. 2-6 (AVs 106 provide communication with stationary base stations
Appeal 2011-004880
Application 11/875,662

5
such as an OCC 105 or a gateway station 110). Where an AV provides all
long range communication between the constellation and a single point such
as an OCC 105 or a gateway station 110, the AV is a fleet router between the
constellation and that single point. Moreover, claim 1 recites a method
“comprising,” so that Ayyagari may include other elements and still fall
within the scope of claim 1. In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (Fed.
Cir. 2009); In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-8.
Claims 9 and 12
Appellant argues that claim 9 requires the step of “transmitting all
communication messages originating from any vehicle of the plurality of
vehicles for transmission to any communication point outside the fleet of
vehicles through the fleet router” and Ayyagari teaches that one or more
AVs 106 maintain a high capacity point-to-link for communication outside
the constellation’s coverage area. App. Br. 10-11. This argument is not
persuasive for the reasons discussed supra for claim 1, as Ayyagari discloses
that one AV 106 of a constellation 108 can provide all communications for
the constellation 108 to multiple communications points or to a single
communication point. We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 12.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 as unpatentable over Jamalipour, Ayyagari, Holder
Appellant argues that claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 depend from claims 1 or
9 and are allowable because Jamalipour and Ayyagari do not disclose all the
limitations of claims 1 and 9 and Holder does not cure this deficiency. App.
Br. 12-14. These arguments are not persuasive as we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 9 as discussed supra, so there is no deficiency for Holder to
cure. We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, and 14.
Appeal 2011-004880
Application 11/875,662

6
Claims 10 and 11 as unpatentable over Jamalipour, Ayyagari, and Hudson
Appellant argues that claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9 and are
allowable because Jamalipour and Ayyagari do not teach or suggest all the
limitations of claim 9 and Hudson does not cure this defect. App. Br. 14-15.
This argument is not persuasive as we sustain the rejection of claim 9 as
discussed supra, so there is no deficiency for Hudson to cure in this regard.
We sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11.
Claims 15-20 as unpatentable over Jamalipour, Ayyagari, Holder, Hudson
Appellant argues claims 15-20 as a group. App. Br. 15-17. We select
claim 15 as representative. Appellant argues that claim 15 recites “wherein
all communications between the plurality of vehicles and at least one
communication point outside the plurality of vehicles is routed through the
fleet router” and none of the references teach or suggest this feature. App.
Br. 16-17 (emphasis in original). Appellant also argues that Hudson does
not disclose this feature. App. Br. 17. These arguments are not persuasive
for the reasons discussed supra for claims 1 and 9 that Ayyagari discloses
this claimed subject matter. We sustain the rejection of claims 15-20.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-20.
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

Klh