Ex parte VESEL

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 26, 1998

08048343 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 15, 1993. 1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ANDREW M. VESEL

_____________
Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,3431
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,343
2
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 12, 14 and 16 to 19,
which constitute all the claims pending in the application.
Representative claim 9 is reproduced below:
9. An integrity monitor for TCAS mutual suppression
comprising:
enable suppression means for enabling suppression;
interrogation means for interrogating own transponder,
said interrogation means interrogating at regular intervals
for discovering intermittent suppression failures;
decision means for deciding whether a reply has been
received from said interrogation means; and,
transmission means for transmitting results received from
said decision means.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Stelling 4,970,510 Nov. 13,
1990
Marino et al. (Marino) 5,177,447 Jan. 05,
1993
Ybarra et al. (Ybarra) 5,208,591 May 04,
1993
(filed Apr. 19, 1991)
All claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103. The examiner applies the collective teachings of
appellant’s admitted prior art at specification pages 1 and 2,
further in view of Stelling and Marino as to claims 1, 3 to 5,
Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,343
3
8 to 11, 14 and 16 to 18, with the addition of Ybarra as to
claims 6, 12 and 19.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The subject matter of each independent claim 1, 9 and 14
on appeal in part relates directly to the logic set forth in
the flow diagram of Fig. 2 beginning at element 17 and the
enablement of a suppression means associated with the Traffic
Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) disclosed. The
steps further include the interrogation only of the plane’s
own transponder (except for claim 1) and further logical
decisions once a reply is received after the interrogation is
sent to analyze whether this enable suppression means
functions properly or does not function at all.
The examiner considers Stelling to teach self testing of
TCAS systems generally to determine if they are performing
appropriately. The examiner recognizes, however, that
Stelling does not show testing of the suppression signal means
Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,343
4
to determine if it is working correctly. The examiner in turn
relies upon Marino for the general teachings that it is known,
here in the automotive test system environment, to isolate
various portions of an electronic control system such as in
automobiles for testing them to determine faulty components.
The examiner characterizes this as a process of elimination.
The examiner takes the view that based on Marino’s general
teachings of a process of elimination by isolating vehicle
systems in a test environment, it would have been obvious to
have applied these general scientific reasoning or teaching
principles to the combination of appellant’s admitted prior
art and Stelling.
We must reverse the rejection because no reference of
record teaches or suggests or even indicates the desirability
of testing the suppression signal means of a TCAS system even
in the manner broadly set forth in each independent claims 1,
9 and 14 on appeal.
Certainly, Marino does not teach such and the examiner’s
position recognizes that Stelling does not show the testing of
a signal suppression means associated with TCAS systems. The
examiner views Stelling’s teachings as being equivalent to
Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,343
5
steps 11 to 16 of appellant’s disclosed flowchart Fig. 2.
However, we note that such is apparently admitted to be a part
of the prior art as expressed in the specification at p. 4,
lines 4 through 11 and p. 5, lines 5 through 10. We are
therefore left with what amounts to, in our view, a prohibited
hindsight analysis of the examiner utilizing Marino’s general
teachings of computerized sequential testing of a device under
test. Alternatively, we do not see any rationale that the
artisan would have derived from the collective teachings of
the three references relied upon that would have led him to
modify Stelling’s teachings to perform any test of the
suppression signal means of his own TCAS system.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 11, 14 and 16 to 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 must be reversed. As such, and because Ybarra
fails to correct these deficiencies, the additional rejection
Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,343
6
of dependent claims 6, 12 and 19 must also be reversed.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
John R. Rafter
Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,343
7
Patent Counsel
Allied Signal, Inc. - Law Dept.
1300 E. Joppa Road
Baltimore, MD 21286-5999