Ex Parte Judd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2017

12888499 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
12/888,499 09/23/2010 Thomas D. Judd H0027310-5435 4550
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
EVANS, GARRETT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2017 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
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, VICKI JUDY,
BARRY LOCKE, and STEVE SCHEU
Appeal 2016-002363
Application 12/888,4991
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN,
and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Honeywell International
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002363
Application 12/888,499
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method and system for managing non-integrated controller pilot data link
communications (CPDLC) systems on an aircraft. Spec. 14. In particular, a
Human Machine Interface (HMI) display (130) provides user access to a
first computing system (110) executing a first CPDLC application (114) and
to a second computing system (120) executing a second CPDLC application
(124) through a manager function (134), which prevents user access to the
second CPDLC when the first CPDLC is being accessed by the user, and
vice versa. Id. 1 5, Fig. 1.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A system for implementing a FANS/ATN CPDLC solution, the
system comprising:
a first computing system executing a first CPDLC application on a
first processor;
a second computing system executing a second CPDLC application
separately from the first CPDLC application on a second processor;
at least one Human Machine Interface (HMI) display coupled to the
first computing system and the second computing system; and
a manager function that determines which of the first computing
system and the second computing system is accessible to a user through the
HMI;
wherein the manager function prevents communication with the first
CPDLC application by the user when the second CPDLC application is in
communication with the user and prevents communication with the second
CPDLC application by the user when the first CPDLC application is in
communication with the user.
2
Appeal 2016-002363
Application 12/888,499
Sandell-602
Lorido
Corbefm
Sandell
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 7,495,602 B2
US 2008/0163093 A1
US 2008/0098307 A1
WO 2007/064733 A1
Feb. 24, 2009
July 03, 2008
Apr. 24, 2008
June 07, 2007
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—4, 6—9, and 11—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Sandell (Sandell-602) and
Corbefm. Final Act. 2—9.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sandell-602, Corbefm, and
Sandell (Sandell-733). Final Act. 9-10.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sandell-602, Corbefm, and Lorido.
Final Act. 10—11.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3—11, and the Reply Brief, pages 1—5.2 We are
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 31, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
December 21, 2015), and the Answer (mailed October 22, 2015) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal 2016-002363
Application 12/888,499
unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2—14; Ans. 2—7. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Sandell-602 and Corbefm is improper because Sandell-602 is directed to
three application components that are part of a single CPDLC application, as
opposed to two different CPDLC applications running independently in
separate computing systems. App. Br. 7—10; Reply Br. 3—4. According to
Appellants, Sandell-602’s disclosure of a single logon for accessing the
application components supports that the components are contained in a
single, and not two separate CPDLC applications as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 8 (citing Sandell-602 5:26—32, 7:1—4). Further, Appellants argue
that the proposed modification of Corbefm with Sandell-602 would render
Corbefm unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and would thereby change
Sandell-602’s principle of operation. App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants
argue that Sandell-602’s disclosure of using a single application would
frustrate Corbefm’s intended purpose of switching between different
computing systems. App. Br. 7—8. Likewise, Appellants argue that the
proposed combination would change Sandell-602’s principle of operation by
breaking the single application into multiple applications. Id. We find these
arguments are not persuasive.
4
Appeal 2016-002363
Application 12/888,499
At the outset, we note Appellants agree with the Examiner’s proposed
construction of the term “application” according to its plain meaning to
denote “a piece of computer software that is designed to do particular job.”
Ans. 2; Reply Br. 1. We also note Appellants’ disagreement with the
Examiner’s mapping of the cited term to the Sandell-602 reference. Reply
Br. 1. Nonetheless, we find the Examiner’s use of the cited term comports
with the undisputed definition of “application.” In other words, because the
ATN applications (104) and the FANS applications (106, 108) disclosed in
Sandell-602 describe pieces of software designed to perform ATN functions
and FANS functions, respectively (Fig.l), we echo the Examiner’s
conclusion that the term “application” is taught by Sandell-602’s disclosure,
which comports with the undisputed definition set forth above. Ans. 2.
Further, we note Appellants rely upon references made in Sandell-602
to items 104 through 108 as “application components” to allege that said
components are part of a single application, as opposed to multiple and
distinct applications. However, Appellants overlook that Sandell-602 refers
to most numerical items in Figure 1 as components (see, e.g., 110, 116, 128,
130,132). Sandell-602 3:10—26. Although such a common reference to the
cited items in Figure 1 does imply that these items belong to a larger unit
(e.g. Dual stack architecture 100), Appellants fail to show the larger unit is a
single “application.” See Ans. 2. Further, Appellants have failed to identify
the nature of the alleged single application that includes both FANS and
ATN application components. Fikewise, we do not agree with Appellants
that Sandell-602’s disclosure of accessing the application components with a
5
Appeal 2016-002363
Application 12/888,499
single logon supports the contention that the components are parts of a
single (yet unidentified) application. Sandell-602 4:54—64. Instead, we
agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would readily appreciate
that the dual stack architecture (100) is known to include various
applications that are accessible to a user who has been authenticated with a
single logon. Ans. 3-A. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
subsequent arguments that Sandell-602’s disclosure of the “application
components” would render Corbefm unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
or that the proposed combination would change Sandell-602’s principle of
operation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Sandell-602 and Corbefm renders claim 1
unpatentable.
Dependent claims 2—20 are not argued separately, or are only
nominally argued separately, so the rejection of these claims are sustained
for substantially the same reasons given for claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.37(c)(l)(iv).
Therefore, the rejections of these claims are sustained for the
foregoing reasons. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claim 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
6