13083070 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

Ex Parte Vasek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 10, 2016

13083070 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/083,070 04/08/2011 89955 7590 HONEYWELL/LKGlobal Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 08/12/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jiri Vasek 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. H0026751 (002.2609) 7366 EXAMINER CASILLAS, ROLAND J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/12/2016 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 DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com docketing@LKGlobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIRI VASEK, PETR KRUPANSKY, PAVEL KOLCAREK, and JAROSLA V JONAK Appeal2015-005225 Application 13/083,070 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm and designate the affirmance as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b). INVENTION "The present invention generally relates to air traffic control and more particularly relates to a method for non-verbally sharing information Appeal2015-005225 Application 13/083,070 between a pilot and a controller using a digital communication link." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for non-verbally sharing information between persons associated with control of an aircraft using a digital communication link, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a first instruction from a first party who is associated with control of the aircraft, to transmit an initial non-verbal communication to a second party who is associated with control of the aircraft; transmitting the initial non-verbal communication to the second party over the digital communication link; receiving a second instruction from the second party to transmit a non-verbal response to the initial non-verbal communication; and transmitting the non-verbal response to the first party over the digital communication link, \x1herein either the initial non-verbal communication or the non-verbal response includes data that can be used to derive a text message and a graphic image, and wherein the graphic image includes information that is available to only one of the first party and the second party. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over Vasek (US 2010/0250025 Al; Sept. 30, 2010) and Briffe (US 6,112,141; Aug. 29, 2000). Final Act. 4-16. 2 Appeal2015-005225 Application 13/083,070 ISSUE Appellants' contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Vasek and Briffe teaches or suggests "either the initial non-verbal request or the non-verbal response includes data that can be used to derive a text message and a graphic image" ("data" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend the cited references do not disclose or suggest the "data" limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 4--7. 1 Appellants argue: [T]he independent claims recite that the non-verbal requests/responses include data that can be used to derive both a text message and a graphic image. . . . [T]he examiner wholly sidesteps this factual finding by stating that "the claim only requires one item to be displayed to the first or second party, either text or a graphic image." ... The examiner's allegation has nothing whatsoever to do with the recited claim language. The fact is that the claims explicitly recite that the non-verbal requests/responses include data that can be used to derive both a text message and a graphic image. Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 11-13. 1 For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellants additionally argue the Examiner did not provide an articulated reasoning to combine the cited references. See Reply Br. 7. In the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants for why this issue was not presented in the principle Brief, we decline to consider this argument. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b )(2) (2014). However, we observe that contrary to Appellants' contentions, the Examiner does articulate a reason, not persuasively rebutted by Appellants, to support the combination. See Final Act. 6. 3 Appeal2015-005225 Application 13/083,070 We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds Vasek teaches a non-verbal response sent as a text message to be displayed on a video display. Ans. 4 (citing Vasek i-f 5). The Examiner further finds Briffe teaches a non-verbal response in the form of a graphic image. Ans. 4 (citing Briffe Fig 5, 9:48-50). Although we disagree with the Examiner's findings that Vasek's textual rendering of data is a graphic image (Ans. 4), we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Vasek and Briffe teaches or suggests the "data" limitation. We observe the "data" limitation merely recites the data (included in the communication or response) can be used to derive a text message and a graphic image. The claim language does not require that the data itself include both a text message and a graphic image. Vasek describes receiving an electronic message comprising electronic itinerary change information, which is used to determine an impact of the change and then textually render the impact of the modification on a video display device. Vasek i-f 5; see also id. i-f 18, Fig 2A (element 105). Briffe describes graphically displaying in area 7 4b traffic alerts. Briffe Fig. 5; 9:42-53. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the electronic itinerary change information (data) taught by Vasek, in light of Briffe' s teachings and suggestions, could be used to derive both the claimed text message (e.g., Vasek's element 205 of Fig. 2A) and a graphic image. In particular, Briffe teaches or suggests rendering data such as (e.g., speed change, fuel, ETA, etc.) graphically. See, e.g., Briffe Fig. 5, col. 9, 11. 42-50 (depicting a graphical horizontal situation indicator having details such as waypoint positions and traffic alerts). Because we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Vasek and Briffe teaches or suggests the "data" limitation, Appellants fail to 4 Appeal2015-005225 Application 13/083,070 persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of: (i) independent claim 1; (ii) independent claims 8 and 19, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments as claim 1; and (iii) dependent claim 2-7, 9-18, and 20, for which Appellants do not present separate arguments for patentability. However, we designate the rejection of claims 1-20 as a new ground of rejection so as to provide Appellants with opportunity to respond to any potential changes in the thrust of the Examiner's rejection. 5 Appeal2015-005225 Application 13/083,070 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-120 is affirmed. The affirmance of the rejection is designated as a new ground of rejection. This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner .... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under Â§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining ProcedureÂ§ 1214.01. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(B) 6