Ex Parte Mitchell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13786310 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/786,310 03/05/2013 Timothy M. Mitchell 12-1237/BNGCP001 US 9249
112148 7590 10/02/2017
Kwan & Olynick LLP, Boeing
2000 Hearst Avenue, Suite 305
Berkeley, CA 94709
EXAMINER
AHN, SUNG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
docket @ kwanip. com
patentadmin @ B oeing. com
lsmith@kwanip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY M. MITCHELL and ANIL KUMAR
Appeal 2017-005841
Application 13/786,3101
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVIN E. BRANCH, 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—18 and 21—23, which are all pending claims.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“Br.”) identifies The Boeing Company as the real party
in interest.
2 Claims 19 and 20 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2017-005841
Application 13/786,310
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to aircraft data transmission modules which
utilize multiple communication paths in transmitting data when an aircraft is
parked at a gate. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system for terrestrial data transmission between
an aircraft and an external network, the system comprising:
a broadband over power line module configured to
transmit data to and from the external network through an
electrical power cable connected to the aircraft and a gate using
a broadband over power line communication link;
at least one wireless communication module configured to
wirelessly transmit data to and from the external network using
at least one wireless communication link; and
a communication link manager configured to initiate and
control data transmission between the broadband over power line
module and the external network using the broadband over
power line communication link and between the at least one
wireless communication module and the external network using
the at least one wireless communication link,
wherein the communication link manager is configured to
instruct the at least one wireless communication module to form
the wireless communication link and to transmit data over the
wireless communication link based on at least the broadband
over power line communication link.
Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Ellington Jr. et al.
Davis et al.
Niss
US 2001/0009021 Al Jul. 19, 2001
US 2008/0195259 Al Aug. 14, 2008
US 2008/0217996 Al Sep. 11, 2008
2
Appeal 2017-005841
Application 13/786,310
Terashima
Owyang et al.
Cline et al.
Pereira
US 2008/0259888 Al Oct. 23, 2008
US 2011/0195656 Al Aug. 11,2011
US 2013/0055321 Al Feb. 28, 2013
US 2013/0244588 Al Sep. 19, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—7, 10—13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis and Owyang. Final
Act. 5—15.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Owyang, and Cline. Final Act. 16.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Owyang, and Pereira. Final Act. 16-17.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Owyang, and Ellington. Final Act. 18.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Owyang, and Niss. Final Act. 19.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis, Owyang, and Terashima. Final Act. 19-20.
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Davis teaches or
suggests a communication link manager configured to:
instruct the at least one wireless communication module to form
the wireless communication link and to transmit data over the
wireless communication link based on at least the broadband
over power line communication link,
as recited in claims 1 and 17, and recited similarly in claim 18?
ISSUE
3
Appeal 2017-005841
Application 13/786,310
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Davis and
Terashima teach or suggest:
wherein the communication link manager is configured to
instruct the at least one wireless communication module to form
the wireless communication link and transmit data over the
wireless communication link and not over the broadband over
power line communication link when the broadband over power
line communication link is available,
as recited in claim 23?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Brief.3 We are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—21)
and (2) the reasons and explanations set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Brief (Ans. 2-4) and concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
for emphasis.
First Issue
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Davis does not
describe any functionality of interface devices 116 and 124 related to
wireless data transmission.” Br. 8. We disagree. Davis states that
“[ijnterface device 116 is also coupled to a network 118 through a wired
network access point 120 or a wireless communication link 122” (emphasis
added). Davis 112. Davis also states that “[ijnterface device 124 also is
3 No reply brief was filed.
4
Appeal 2017-005841
Application 13/786,310
coupled to an onboard network 129 through an onboard wired network
access point 130 or an onboard wireless communication link 132.” Davis
113.
Appellants also argue Davis describes only two modes of
communication: (1) switching from a wireless connection to a wired
powerline connection upon attachment of the plug 106 to the aircraft; or (2)
maintaining both a wireless and powerline connection simultaneously.
Br. 8—9. Because there is no situation where a wireless connection is formed
subsequent to the attachment of the power line, Appellants argue Davis does
not teach “form[ing] the wireless communication link . . . based on at least
the broadband over power line communication link.” App. Br. 9. We are
not persuaded by this argument because it is not commensurate with the
scope of the argued limitation.
Appellants’ argument suggests that the wireless communication link
can be “based on” the power line communication link only if a powerline
communication link has already been established. We do not read this
limitation so narrowly. Appellants’ Specification describes no embodiment
operating in accordance with Appellants’ interpretation. That is, if
Appellants’ interpretation were correct, the Specification would lack written
description for this claim limitation.
The disclosed embodiments in Appellants’ Specification indicate that
the power line connection and the wireless connection may be established
separately, and that in some instances, one of the connection types may not
be available. Spec. 146. We construe claims according to their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When read in light of the Specification, we
5
Appeal 2017-005841
Application 13/786,310
conclude the limitation of “forming] the wireless communication link . . .
based on at least the broadband over power line communication link,” is
sufficiently broad as to cover a wireless connection that is formed due to the
absence of an available power line connection. Because such a
configuration is taught by Davis, see Davis 116, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combination of Davis and Owyang (not argued with particularity).
Second Issue
Appellants separately argue for patentability of claim 23, which
depends from claim 1, and recites the limitation:
wherein the communication link manager is configured to
instruct the at least one wireless communication module to form
the wireless communication link and transmit data over the
wireless communication link and not over the broadband over
power line communication link when the broadband over power
line communication link is available.
App. Br. 21 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds this limitation taught
by the combination of Davis and Terashima. Final Act. 19—20. Specifically,
the Examiner finds Davis teaches using either one or both of the power line
and wireless connections, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting over
only the wireless connection when the power line connection is available.
Final Act. 20. The Examiner finds Terashima cures this deficiency, because
it discloses switching between a wireless LAN and a power line connection
based on the condition of the connection. Final Act. 20 (citing Terashima |
14).
Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would not use a
wireless connection to the exclusion of an available power line connection
because Davis teaches the power line link is superior to the wireless link.
6
Appeal 2017-005841
Application 13/786,310
Br. 12—13. We are not persuaded by this argument. While Davis indicates
that in general, the power line connection has higher bandwidth and superior
reliability, nothing in Davis suggests there would never be a situation where
the condition of the wireless connection would be superior to that of the
power line connection. Moreover, Terashima expressly recognizes that at
times, the condition of the wireless connection can be better than that of the
power line communication (and vice versa). Having this knowledge, a
skilled artisan would have recognized that communication quality could be
improved by switching to the system having the best current connection
condition, as taught by Terashima, irrespective of a typical performance
advantage of the power line connection. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 23.
Remaining Claims
Appellants present no separate arguments for patentability of
dependent claims 2—16 and 21—22. Accordingly, these claims all fall with
claim 1, from which they each depend.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—18 and 21—23.
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).
AFFIRMED
7