Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

14448923 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/448,923 07/31/2014
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
11/02/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rakesh Kumar
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.
H0044283-5435 6275
EXAMINER
KLEINMAN, LAIL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
docket@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAKESH KUMAR,
MARIA JOHN PAUL DOMINIC,
VIVEK KUMAR PANDEY, SIVA KOMMURI, and
DARSHAN GANDHI
Appeal2018-002172
Application 14/448,923 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 3-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002172
Application 14/448,923
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "[ s ]ystems and
methods for ... controller pilot data link communication" between an air
traffic controller and a pilot. Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the
independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative
of the appealed claims.
1. A method for controller pilot data link communication
(CPDLC), the method comprising:
receiving data through the selection of a selectable item on
a non-CPDLC screen on a pilot interface, wherein the pilot
interface is a non-CPDLC interface and the non-CPDLC screen
is used for non-CPDLC tasks;
communicating the data to a CPDLC application;
constructing a CPDLC message based on the data;
transmitting the CPDLC message to an air traffic
controller; and
displaying a CPDLC screen on a CPDLC human machine
interface (HMI) based on the data, wherein the pilot interface is
an HMI that receives commands from or provides data to a pilot
on a separate device from the device hosting the CPDLC HMI.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lorido (US 2008/0163093 Al, pub. July 3, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner's Final
Office Action and Answer, and Appellants' Appeal Brief and Reply Brief,
for the reasons discussed below, Appellants persuade us that the Examiner's
2
Appeal2018-002172
Application 14/448,923
rejection is in error. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 and 3-20.
Independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 3---8
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lorido 's
paragraphs 7 and 52 disclose receiving data from a non-CPDLC screen, and
communicating the data to a CPDLC application, as claimed. Final Act. 4;
see also Answer 4 ("Lorido discloses a multifunction display which receives
a selection of a selectable item on a non-CPDLC screen ([n]on-CPDLC
tabs-[s]ee at least Fig[ures] 3-4), communicates data to a CPDLC
application ([c]ommunication with CPDLC-[s]ee at least f 52)."); see
Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1 ). Appellants argue that the Examiner errs
because these "paragraphs fail to disclose data that is selected on a non-
CPDLC screen and then provided to a CPDLC application," as claim 1
requires. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3-5. We agree with Appellants.
Figures 3 and 4 of Lorido illustrate a "LOGON" screen, while
Lorido's paragraph 52 discloses, in relevant part, the following:
This display space of the lower left quadrant of the MFD
[(multifunction display)] screen is occupied by various overlaid
management windows assigned in one case "LOGON" to the
management of an air-ground link intended to convey the digital
traffic with the ground and, in the case of each of the others, to
specialized datalink communication services, such as "CPDLC."
Lorido Figs. 3, 4; ,r 52. Although Lorido further discloses that the LOGON
screen communicates with the CPDLC system, we are persuaded that the
Examiner has not shown adequately, and it is not otherwise apparent to us,
that the LOGON screen receives data from a non-CPDLC application or
system. See id. ,r,r 55---62. Further, while Lorido discloses a non-CPDLC
application (i.e., the ADS system), we are persuaded that the Examiner has
3
Appeal2018-002172
Application 14/448,923
not shown adequately, and it is not otherwise apparent to us, that data from
this application is communicated to the CPDLC application. See id. ,r,r 63-
69. Still further, while other portions of Lorido disclose functions of a
CPD LC application, the Examiner does not explain how any of these
portions disclose that the CPDLC application receives data from a non-
CPDLC application. See id. ,r,r 70-125.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the Examiner fails to support
adequately that Lorido discloses claim 1 's recitation of receiving data from a
non-CPDLC system and communicating the data to a CPDLC system.
Therefore, we do not sustain claim 1 's rejection, or the rejection of
dependent claims 3-8.
Independent claims 9 and 16, and their dependent claims 10-15
and 17-20
Each of independent claims 9 and 16 includes a recitation similar to
that discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br., Claims App
(Claims 1, 9, 16). In the rejection of claims 9 and 16, the Examiner finds
that Lorido's paragraphs 47, 51, and 70 disclose a non-CPDLC that receives
data and passes the data to the CPD LC application. Final Action 7-8, 10-
11. For reasons similar to those set forth above, however, although Lori do' s
multifunction display provides a user interface to non-CPDLC applications,
the Examiner does not support adequately that data passes from any non-
CPDLC application to the CPDLC application. Thus, based on the
foregoing, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's rejection is in error.
See Appeal Br. 11. Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 9 and 16, or the rejection of claims 10-15
and 17-20 that depend from these independent claims.
4
Appeal2018-002172
Application 14/448,923
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1
and 3-20.
REVERSED
5