Ex Parte Letsu-Dake et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

12912135 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/912,135
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
10/26/2010
07115/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Emmanuel Letsu-Dake
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.
H0027945 (H000-1-1836) 1525
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 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
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMMANUEL LETSU-DAKE, DA VE PEPITONE,
CRAIG SCHIMMEL, JOE RAKOLTA, and JOHN FUGEDY
Appeal2014-008510
Application 12/912, 135
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CATHERINE SHIANG, and SCOTT
E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-12, which are all the claims pending in the
application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
1 Appellants have cancelled claims 2, 3, 6, and 7. See Amendment dated
Dec. 23, 2013.
Appeal2014-008510
Application 12/912, 135
The present invention relates to improving an in-trail procedures
request. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system located on board a host aircraft, the system comprising:
an In-Trail Procedures (ITP) unit comprising an ITP display device,
wherein the ITP unit is configured to:
receive an altitude selection;
determine that the altitude selection is valid; and
after determining that the received altitude selection is valid,
present ITP altitude change request information, based on the received
altitude selection, at an ITP user interface associated with the ITP
display device;
a communication component; and
a multifunction control display unit (MCDU) comprising a MCDU
display device, the MCDU being distinct from the ITP unit, the MCDU
being in signal communication with the communication component, and the
MCDU being configured to:
present an MCDU user interface at the MCDU display device,
the MCDU user interface comprising an ITP altitude change request
template for creating a free-text ITP altitude change request, the ITP
altitude change request template comprising a plurality of fields for
receiving ITP altitude change request information based on the ITP
altitude change request information being presented at the ITP display
device of the ITP unit;
create a free-text ITP altitude change request from the ITP
altitude change request information received in the plurality of fields
of the ITP altitude change request template and further based on
content of the plurality of fields; and
send the created free-text ITP altitude change request to an Air
Traffic Control (ATC) facility via the communication component.
References and Rejection
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Depape (US 2010/0286900 Al; Nov. 11, 2010) and
Mettes (US 2009/0030737 Al; Feb. 5, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-008510
Application 12/912, 135
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Depape and Mettes
collectively teach "a multifunction control display unit (MCDU) ... the
MCDU being configured to: present an MCDU user interface at the MCDU
display device, the MCDU user interface comprising an ITP altitude change
request template for creating a free-text ITP altitude change request, the ITP
altitude change request template comprising a plurality of fields for
receiving ITP altitude change request information based on the ITP altitude
change request information being presented at the ITP display device of the
ITP unit," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 2 See App.
Br. 9-13.
The Examiner maps the claimed MCDU to Depape's multifunction
interface (4). See Ans. 3 (citing Depape, Fig. 1). The Examiner cites
Depape's paragraphs 79, 84--85, and 89, and Mettes' disclosure of "free
text" for teaching the italicized claim limitation. See Ans. 3-8, 13-15.
We have examined the reference portions cited by the Examiner, and
such portions do not describe "an ITP altitude change request template for
creating a free-text ITP altitude change request, the ITP altitude change
request template comprising a plurality of fields for receiving ITP altitude
change request information based on the ITP altitude change request
information being presented at the ITP display device of the ITP unit," as
2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-008510
Application 12/912, 135
required by the claim. 3 In fact, the Examiner concedes Depape teaches "one
field is presented for receiving In-Trail Procedure" Ans. 13. Further, the
Examiner has not shown the claimed feature is obvious in the context of the
claim. For example, contrary to the claim requirement of an ITP altitude
change request template comprising a plurality of fields, the Examiner
asserts "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have configured Depape to
allow the pilot to enter the desired altitude change as free text[.]" Ans. 15
(emphasis added). In contrast, Appellants persuasively argue the claim does
not recite entering the altitude change request as free text:
rather than requiring a user to compose an ITP altitude change request
using free text, which may be cumbersome and prone to error. The
MCDU user interface is configured to provide an ITP request template
from which a user can more easily create an ITP altitude change
request.
App. Br. 9.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, \'X/e are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent
claims 4, 9, and 10 for similar reasons.
Independent claim 5 recites a claim limitation that is substantively the
same as the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claim 5. Therefore, for
similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 5, and corresponding dependent claims 8, 11, and 12.
3 We note the claimed "ITP altitude change request template" is not non-
functional descriptive material, as it is "for creating a free-text ITP altitude
change request." Claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-008510
Application 12/912, 135
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-12.
REVERSED
5