Ex Parte Scheid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2013

12062676 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013)

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.
12/062,676 04/04/2008 Paul Raymond Scheid PA0006569U;
67097-975PUS1
1747
54549 7590 09/10/2013
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
AFOLABI, MARK O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2013 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 PAUL RAYMOND SCHEID
and WILLIAM H. BEACHAM
____________

Appeal 2011-004890
Application 12/062,676
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NEIL T. POWELL, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-004890
Application 12/062,676

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of aircraft communication, comprising the
steps of:
(a) providing a communications device for permitting
Internet access on an aircraft;
(b) providing a first computer on the aircraft in
communication with the communications device;
(c) providing a second computer on the aircraft, the
second computer in communication with the communications
device and storing information relating to the operation of the
aircraft;
(d) providing access to the first computer for a passenger;
(e) providing access to the second computer for a second
person different from the passenger; and
(f) preventing the passenger from obtaining access to the
second computer.

REJECTION
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nelson (US 2003/0041155 A1; pub. Feb. 27, 2003) and Gresham (US
2002/0160773 A1; pub. Oct. 31, 2002).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Nelson discloses a communications device
(Ethernet unit 115) that permits internet access on an aircraft to a wireless
LAN 182, a first computer (Human Interface Module (HIM) 155) that is in
communication with the communications device, a second computer (server
110) in communication with the communications device, a passenger can
access the first computer, a different second person can access the second
computer, as recited in claims 1, 11, and 91, but Nelson does not prevent a
passenger from accessing the second computer. Ans. 4-5, 8-9, 11-12.
Appeal 2011-004890
Application 12/062,676

3
The Examiner found that Gresham prevents a passenger from
obtaining access to the second computer by allowing a passenger to signal
from a terminal 40 to a server 20 indicating which messages or parts of
messages are approved to be retrieved and the server 20 then establishes a
communication link with the base station 90 to retrieve the authorized data,
which is then transmitted to the server 20 and retrieved by the terminal 40.
Ans. 5-6, 9, 12 (citing Gresham, paras. [0051], [0126-0127], [0151]). The
Examiner reasoned that when a passenger provides a signal from the
terminal 40 to the server 20 indicating which messages are approved to be
retrieved “preventing the passenger from obtaining access is taking place”
because “if messages are approved access is granted, if messages are not
allow access is denied.” Ans. 20-21. The Examiner reasoned that it would
have been obvious to modify Nelson to prevent passengers from accessing
the second computer or obtaining unauthorized access to any aircraft system
by requesting the passenger to enter their message server address, username,
and password for security reasons and grant access to the right passengers.
Ans. 6 (citing Gresham, paras. [0165-0170]).
Appellants argue that the portions of Gresham cited by the Examiner
as preventing a passenger from obtaining access to a second computer refer
to a mail server on the ground (not on the aircraft 10) that delivers content to
some passengers and delivery of mail to certain passengers, does not prevent
a passenger from obtaining access to a second computer on an aircraft as a
message is not a computer. App. Br. 6. We agree.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Gresham discloses preventing a passenger from gaining access to a second
computer on an aircraft. Gresham discloses that multiple passengers can
Appeal 2011-004890
Application 12/062,676

4
access a second computer such as base station 90, 120 from a terminal 40 on
an airplane to retrieve messages from message servers 192, 195. Gresham,
paras. [0047-0048]. These second computers, whether base stations 90, 120
or mail servers 192, 195, are not on the airplane 10, as required by claims 1,
11, and 19. The portions of Gresham relied upon by the Examiner disclose
that base station 90 signals aircraft server 20 when messages are available
for retrieval from base station 90 (para. [0051]) and base station 90 connects
to message servers 192, 195 and content servers 185 of passengers on board
the aircraft to retrieve messages (para.[0126]). Gresham also discloses that
passengers can retrieve messages via HTML web pages by entering the
message server address, username, and password for specific servers, but
this arrangement does not prevent other passengers from accessing the same
message servers for emails at their accounts, and these message servers are
not on the aircraft. As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-20.

REVERSED

mls