Ex Parte Larois et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

14354914 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/354,914 04/28/2014
60601 7590 02/27/2019
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bruno Larois
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.
4005/0531PUS1 9503
EXAMINER
DIVITO, WALTERJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUNO LAROIS, DENIS DEL VILLE, JEAN-
MARIE COURTEILLE, and PATRICK VALETTE
Appeal2018-005430
Application 14/354,914 1
Technology Center 2400
Before J. JOHN LEE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Brief ("Br.") identifies SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE as the
real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005430
Application 14/354,914
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "a device for selectively connecting a first
piece of computer equipment to a plurality of second pieces of computer
equipment." Spec. 1, 11. 4---6. The Specification indicates that "[s]uch
connection devices are useful in numerous fields, and more particularly in
the field of aviation." Id., 11. 9--10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of computers;
a loading and downloading unit to load programs or
updates or data into the plurality of computers; and
a device for selective connection of the loading and
downloading unit, the device comprising a first Ethernet port for
connection to the loading and downloading unit, second Ethernet
ports for connection to each of the plurality of computers, a
selector circuit arranged to connect the first Ethernet port
physically and selectively to only one of the second Ethernet
ports, and a selector control unit,
wherein the second Ethernet ports are isolated from one
another to prevent from being connected to one another, and
wherein the system is on board an aircraft.
Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Francis
Kagan
Edwards
Cantwell
Oliveira
US 6,628,648 B 1
US 2006/0161400 Al
US 2007 /0237127 Al
US 2010/0002588 Al
US 2012/0310584 Al
2
Sep.30,2003
Jul. 20, 2006
Oct. 11, 2007
Jan. 7,2010
Dec. 6, 2012
Appeal2018-005430
Application 14/354,914
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cantwell, Kagan, and Oliveira. Final Act. 7-10.
Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cantwell, Kagan, Oliveira, and Francis. Final Act. 10-12.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cantwell, Kagan, Oliveira, and Edwards. Final Act. 13-
14.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cantwell teaches most of
the recited limitations. Final Act. 7. However, the Examiner finds that
while Cantwell "disclose[s] Ethernet ports ... [it] does not explicitly
disclose wherein the second Ethernet ports are isolated from one another to
prevent [them] from being connected to one another." Final Act. 7-8. The
Examiner turns to Kagan, finding that it teaches isolating Ethernet ports
from one another. Final Act. 8 ( citing Kagan ,r 4 7). The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to modify Cantwell with the teachings
of Kagan because an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized "the
benefit of preventing electrical signals from being transmitted between
Ethernet ports." Id. The Examiner also finds Cantwell and Kagan deficient
with respect to teaching their systems are installed "on board an aircraft," as
recited in the claims. The Examiner addresses this deficiency by relying on
Oliveira, finding that it teaches the use of multiple computer systems on an
aircraft connected together using a communication network. Final Act. 8
( citing Oliveira ,r 2).
3
Appeal2018-005430
Application 14/354,914
Appellants present three arguments asserting Examiner error. First,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred by failing to consider the claims as a
whole in violation of MPEP § 2141.02(!). Br. 11. More specifically,
Appellants argue the Examiner failed to consider the limitation-implicit in
the claims-that the recited "device for selective connection" must be
positioned physically between the recited "loading and downloading unit"
and the recited "plurality of computers." Br. 12.
Second, Appellants argue that none of the cited references are
analogous art to the claimed invention. With respect to Cantwell and Kagan,
Appellants argue because they are not directed to connecting pieces of
equipment in an aircraft environment, they cannot be considered analogous
art to the claimed invention. Br. 12-13. Appellants also argue Oliveira is
non-analogous art because it relates to testing functionality of in-flight
entertainment systems. Br. 13.
Third, Appellants argue Kagan does not cure the deficiency in
Cantwell because "Kagan discloses a single first Ethernet port and a single
second Ethernet port," and "does not disclose or suggest a plurality of
second Ethernet ports that are each connected to a computer." Br. 15
( emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, because Kagan does not
disclose a plurality of second Ethernet ports, it cannot "disclose or suggest
isolating the second Ethernet ports from one another." Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by these arguments, and we address each in
tum. Appellants' first argument, that the Examiner failed to consider all
limitations in the claims, is not persuasive because Appellants do not
sufficiently explain why the cited references do not teach or suggest all
limitations. Appellants argue that Figure 1 of the Specification demonstrates
4
Appeal2018-005430
Application 14/354,914
that the recited "connection device" must be interposed between the
"loading and downloading unit" and the "plurality of computers." Br. 11.
However, we agree with the Examiner that even if the claims require2 that
the connection device be interposed between the other devices, "the
Cantwell reference as used in the rejection comprises a switch with input
and output ports for connecting one device (e.g., on the input side) to
another device (e.g., on the output side)." Ans. 2-3. That is, the network
switch 102 (the recited "connection device") is interposed between external
computer 104 (the recited "loading/downloading unit") which connects to
the switch via control port 122 and allows it to "create a dedicated circuit
connection between an input port and one or more output ports" leading to
the recited "plurality of computers. Cantwell ,r 18. As such, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner failed to consider
each of the elements in the claims.
Appellants' second argument-that the references are not analogous
art-is similarly unpersuasive. "References within the statutory terms of
35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only
when analogous to the claimed invention." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). A
reference is analogous art if it satisfies one of two separate tests: (1) the art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2)
if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
2 As we find the combined references teach or suggest the implicit
limitations argued by Appellants, we do not reach the issue of whether the
claims actually require such limitations.
5
Appeal2018-005430
Application 14/354,914
the inventor is involved. Id. (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
We agree with the Examiner that Cantwell and Kagan are both from
the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because, like the
claimed invention, they involve the use of computer networking devices to
provide secure and reliable connections between computer equipment. As
acknowledged by Appellants, "an object of the present application is to
provide means for connecting a first piece of computer equipment to a
plurality of second pieces of computer equipment in a manner that is simple,
reliable, and secure." Br. 12 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Spec. 2, 11. 4--7).
Appellants emphasize that their invention is used in an aircraft, while
Cantwell and Kagan are not. However, we agree with the Examiner that
recitation of "on board an aircraft" is merely an implementation
environment, and does not limit the relevant field of endeavor to only
computer networking equipment installed in an aircraft. Appellants also
argue Cantwell and Kagan address different problems than the problem
identified by the inventors. However, because they are in the same field of
endeavor, that they address different problems does not disqualify them.
Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325.
With respect to Oliveira, Appellants argue it relates to testing
functionality of in-flight entertainment system and is therefore not analogous
art. We disagree. Oliveira states that "[t]he invention relates to ... testing a
distributed, multi-user computer system, and more specifically, relates to the
control and testing of such a computer system that is an in-flight
entertainment system for commercial aircraft." Oliveira ,r 1 ( emphasis
added). Thus, Oliveira addresses problems related to the installation and
6
Appeal2018-005430
Application 14/354,914
testing of computer networking equipment in an aircraft. We agree with the
Examiner that Oliveira is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem of
"connecting a first piece of computer equipment to a plurality of second
pieces of computer equipment in a manner that is simple, reliable, and
secure" (Spec. 2, 11. 4--7) as described in Appellants' specification.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Oliveira is non-analogous art.
Finally, we also are not persuaded by Appellants' third argument that
Kagan fails to disclose a plurality of second Ethernet ports as recited in the
claims. Appellants' argument attacks Kagan individually, where the
Examiner has relied on the combined teachings of Cantwell and Kagan as
disclosing the argued limitation. As the Examiner explains, "Kagan
discloses two ports that are isolated from one another and Cantwell discloses
multiple output ports, therefore the combination of Cantwell and Kagan
discloses this limitation." Ans. 4.
Summary
Because we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of
Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not
present any separate arguments for patentability of any of the remaining
claims, which fall along with claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
7
Appeal2018-005430
Application 14/354,914
AFFIRMED
8