Ex Parte Judd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12771146 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121771,146 04/30/2010
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
08/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas D. Judd
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.
H0025042-5435 1075
EXAMINER
CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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
docket@fogglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS D. JUDD, MICHAEL J. KAYSER, THOMAS F.
MCGUFFIN, and REETU GUPTA
Appeal2015-004828
Application 12/771, 146
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-004828
Application 12/771, 146
The present invention relates to adjusting a user interface based on a
first Controller/Pilot Data Link Communications (CPD LC) version of an
established first CPDLC session (see Spec. i-fi-f l-2).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An avionics system comprising:
a human machine interface configured to display a user
interface; and
a control device coupled to the human machine interface,
wherein the control device is configured to:
send and receive controller/pilot data link
communications (CPDLC) messages;
send a logon message to an air traffic control
center;
receive a logon response message sent from the air
traffic control center, the logon response message sent
upon a successful logon to the air traffic control center in
response to the logon message, the logon response
message specifying a first CPDLC version that a current
data authority supports; and
adjust the user interface based on the first CPDLC
version specified in the logon response message.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
RI. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sandell et al. (US 7,495,602 B2, Feb. 24, 2009) and Hagiu
et al. (US 8,220,042 B2, July 10, 2012).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
2
Appeal2015-004828
Application 12/771, 146
arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that Sandell and Hagiu teach the claimed
receive a logon response message sent from the air traffic
control center, the logon response message sent upon a
successful logon to the air traffic control center in response to
the logon message, the logon response message specifying a
first CPDLC version that a current data authority supports; and
adjust the user interface based on the first CPDLC version
specified in the logon response message
(see claim 1 ).
Here, the Examiner relies on Sandell to teach exchanging CPDLC
messages and adjusting the user interface based on the CPDLC version (see
Final Act. 5-6; see also Ans. 2-3); and the Examiner relies on Hagiu to
teach selecting a protocol, to be used for a connection, using messages
exchanged between two points (see Final Act. 6-7; see also Ans. 3--4). The
Examiner finds that "Hagiu provides for the order of logon and sending of
the protocol in as much detail as required by the instant claim when
combined with Sandell" (Ans. 5). We disagree with this interpretation.
As identified by Appellants, the claimed invention requires "'upon a
successful logon to the air traffic control center' that an aircraft would be
sent by the air traffic control center a 'logon response message specifying a
first CPDLC version that a current data authority support"' and that "the
avionics would 'adjust the user interface based on the first CPDLC version
specified in the logon response message"' (App. Br. 6-7; see Reply Br. 5).
Appellants argue that Sandell instead teaches "a crew-entered selection of
ATC Center type on the common logon page 300 prior to logon that
determines whether the on-board avionics will utilize ATN or FANS" (App.
Br. 6), and "adjustments appear to be based on 'the crew-entered ATC
3
Appeal2015-004828
Application 12/771, 146
center' entered into screen 300" (App. Br. 7). Appellants further argue that,
in Hagiu, "[ o ]nly AFTER the communication protocol is negotiated between
the client and server do the client and server 'then exchange appropriate
authentication information, and then establish a connection session that
implements the chosen communication protocol'" (App. Br. 8; see Reply Br.
5).
Specifically, Sandell discloses
[a] crew-entered ATC center may also be used in combination
with the database to determine the address for an ATN logon ..
. it may be a local implementation decision whether to require
the crew to make all entries regardless of the type of connection
being established ... [and o ]nee the system determines that it is
to communicate with an ATN or FANS ATC (or other type)
center, it simply executes the appropriate protocols (CMA or
AFN respectively) for a logon to that type of ATC center
(Sandell, col. 4, 1. 63---col. 5, 1. 14); and Hagiu discloses "[a] client initiating
a connection with a server identifies the secure communication protocols
enabled at the client, and identifies these protocols in a connection request it
sends to the server. The server processes the message and response with a
communication protocol it deems appropriate for the connection" (Hagiu,
Abstract). In other words, Sandell teaches the crew making entries
regardless of the connection type, and executing the correct protocols; and
Hagiu teaches negotiating a connection to use the correct communication
protocol.
However, while the Examiner has argued that "Sandell requires
advance knowledge of which protocol (CPDLC version) will be used" (Ans.
3), the Examiner has failed to provide persuasive evidence that Hagiu's
communications protocol negotiation and Sandell' s user interface
4
Appeal2015-004828
Application 12/771, 146
adjustment results in the identification of a CPD LC version in the message
that is supported, and then adjusting the user interface based on the
identified CPDLC version. Specifically, the Examiner has not shown "the
logon response message specifying a first CPDLC version that a current data
authority supports" and adjusting "the user interface based on the first
CPDLC version specified in the logon response message" (emphases added).
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Sandell' s crew-
entered selection of ATC protocol and subsequent adjustment of the user
interface, and Hagiu's negotiation of general communications protocols for a
connection request, teaches the claimed limitations to
receive a logon response message sent from the air traffic
control center, the logon response message sent upon a
successful logon to the air traffic control center in response to
the logon message, the logon response message specifying a
first CPDLC version that a current data authority supports; and
adjust the user interface based on the first CPDLC version
specified in the logon response message
as recited in independent claim 1 with commensurate limitations in each of
the remaining independent claims. The Examiner has not found any other
reference of record teach these features.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claims 1-20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
5
Appeal2015-004828
Application 12/771, 146
REVERSED
6