Ex Parte Srinivasan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 25, 2019

15369695 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/369,695 12/05/2016
89953 7590
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
04/29/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Divya Swamp Giriyappa Srinivasan
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.
H0056354-5435 5777
EXAMINER
FIGUEROA, MARISOL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2019 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 DIVY A SW ARUP GIRIY APP A SRINIVASAN and
THOMAS D. JUDD
Appeal2018-006961
Application 15/369,695 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and JASON M.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appellants' invention is a method and apparatus for expediting
transmission of vehicle messages. In the method, determinations are made
whether a condition exists to expedite transmission of a message, whether a
preferential sub-network is available, and whether at least one less
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Honeywell International
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006961
Application 15/369,695
preferential sub-network is available. When the condition to expedite
transmission exists and the preferential sub-network is not available, the
transmission of the vehicle message over a less preferential sub-network is
expedited. Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for processing vehicle messages, comprising:
receiving a vehicle message for transmission;
determining whether a condition exists to expedite
transmission of the vehicle message regardless of source of
origin of the vehicle message;
determining if a preferential sub-network is available;
determining if at least one less preferential sub-network
is available; and
when the condition exists, when the preferential sub-
network is not available for use, and the less preferential sub-
network is available, expediting the transmission of the vehicle
message over a less preferential sub-network.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.)
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal: 2
Allen
Yee
McGuffin
Sakata
Obeck
Rudolf
Foygel
Yigang
Konstantinou
US 7,519,014 B2
us 6,147,980
US 2009/0117895 Al
US 2013/0005262 Al
us 5,014,052
US 2006/0030290 Al
US 2011/0145125 Al
US 2008/0004049 Al
US 2010/0267383 Al
April 14, 2009
November 14, 2000
May 7, 2009
January 3, 2013
May 7, 1991
February 9, 2006
June 16, 2011
January 3, 2008
October 21, 2010
2 This decision cites to the first name of the prior artists relied upon, when
more than one inventor is included.
2
Appeal2018-006961
Application 15/369,695
Claims 1---6, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Allen and Yee.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen, Yee, and McGuffin.
Claims 9, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen, Yee, and Sakata.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen, Sakata, and Yee.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen, Yee, Obeck, and Rudolph.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen, Yee, and Foygel.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen, Yee, Foygel, and Yigang.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen, Yee, and Yigang.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen, Yee, and Konstantinou.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief filed
January 29, 2018 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief filed June 22, 2018 ("Reply
Br."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed May 10, 2018 ("Ans."), for their
respective details.
3
Appeal2018-006961
Application 15/369,695
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Allen and Yee disclose or suggest
determining if a sub-network is "available" within the meaning ascribed to
the term in Appellants' Specification?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of
a "fully integrated written instrument" ... consisting principally
of a specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason,
claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they
are a part." . . . . [T]he specification "is always highly relevant to
the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted).
When an inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, the inventor's
intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive. Id. at
1316.
4
Appeal2018-006961
Application 15/369,695
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1---6, 12, 14, AND 15
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "determining if a preferential
sub-network is available," and "determining if at least one less preferential
sub-network is available."
The Examiner finds that Appellants do not clearly define "available
sub-network" in the Specification because the specific definition supplied
"provides various alternative meanings." Ans. 23. The Examiner then
construes the term "available" in accordance with a general purpose
dictionary and finds that Allen discloses "determining if a preferential sub-
network is available" under that construction. Ans. 28. We do not agree
with the Examiner's construction of the term "available sub-network."
Appellants provide a specific definition of the phrase "active
communications network" in the Specification:
An active communications network, or active sub-
network, shall mean any communications network that forms a
reliable communications link, i.e. a communications network
through which a vehicle message is being or can be transmitted;
respectively is being received or can be promptly received upon
transmission by the intended recipient; and for which an
acknowledgement of receipt of the vehicle message is or can be
promptly received from an intended destination.
Spec. ,r 22 ( emphasis added).
5
Appeal2018-006961
Application 15/369,695
Appellants next provide a specific definition of the phrase "an
available sub-network" in the Specification: "An available sub-network
shall mean any active communications network which is free to transmit a
vehicle message, i.e. is not presently transmitting a vehicle message or
awaiting an acknowledgement of receipt of a vehicle message from the
intended destination." Id. ( emphasis added).
An inventor is free to define the specific terms used to describe his or
her invention. This must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellants argue, and we agree, that the Federal Circuit has held that it is
permissible for a patent applicant to set forth alternative definitions for a
claim term. Reply Br. 2; SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187,
1194 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Examiner cites no authority to support the
position that alternative meanings per se render a definition unclear. See
Ans. 23.
We determine that Appellants' definition (see supra p. 5), of
"available sub-network" as "an[] active communications network ... [that]
is not presently transmitting a vehicle message or awaiting an
acknowledgement of receipt of a vehicle message from the intended
destination," while it contains alternative language, is nonetheless
reasonably clear, deliberate, and precise. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. It
follows, from our conclusion that Appellants' definition is clearly defined in
the Specification, that the Examiner's proffered dictionary definition of
"available," from whatever source, is not relevant to our construction. The
Specification is "the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. When an inventor has dictated the correct claim
6
Appeal2018-006961
Application 15/369,695
scope, the inventor's intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded
as dispositive. Id. at 1316.
The Examiner finds that Allen discloses determining if a preferential
sub-network is available. We do not agree with the Examiner's finding,
because Allen's use of "available" does not correspond to Appellants'
specific definition. Allen discloses that "[ s ]horter range data link protocols
such as 802.11 b, 802.1 lg, and Bluetooth are typically only available to an
aircraft proximate [to] a ground-based transmission station 18 located at an
airport." Allen 3: 13-16. "Availability as detected at blocks 122 and 126 is
typically the result of the aircraft 10 arriving at a point proximate a
transmission station 18 located at an airport." Allen. 6:59-62.
Allen's disclosure concerning an "available" sub-network, then,
concerns only the physical proximity of an aircraft to a ground-based
transmission station. Allen does not disclose an "active" network or sub-
network as "an[] active communications network ... which is free to
transmit a vehicle message, i.e. is not presently transmitting a vehicle
message or awaiting an acknowledgement of receipt of a vehicle message
from the intended destination," as Appellants specifically define the term.
Because we find that Allen does not disclose determining if a
preferential sub-network is available, or determining if at least one less
preferential sub-network is available, we find that the combination of Allen
and Yee fails to disclose at least one of the contested limitations of
independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§
103(a) rejection of claims 1---6, 12, 14, and 15 over Allen and Yee.
CLAIMS 7-11, 13, AND 16-20
7
Appeal2018-006961
Application 15/369,695
We have reviewed the further references (McGuffin, Sakata, Obeck,
Rudolph, Foygel, Yigang, and Konstantinou), and we find that they do not
remedy the deficiencies of Allen and Yee discussed supra. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 7 over Allen, Yee,
and McGuffin. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
claims 9, 10, and 13 over Allen, Yee, and Sakata. We do not sustain the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 11 over Allen, Sakata, and Yee. We
do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 16 and 17 over
Allen, Yee, Obeck, and Rudolph. We do not sustain the Examiner's
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 18 over Allen, Yee, and Foygel. We do not
sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 19 over Allen, Yee,
Foygel, and Yigang. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
claim 8 over Allen, Yee, and Yigang. We do not sustain the Examiner's
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 20 over Allen, Yee, and Konstantinou.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Allen and Yee does not disclose or suggest
determining if a sub-network is "available" within the meaning ascribed to
the term in Appellants' Specification.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
8