Ex Parte WhiteDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201712961016 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 40125/03702 8387 EXAMINER BULLINGTON, ROBERT P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/961,016 12/06/2010 30636 7590 03/01/2017 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP 150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702 NEW YORK, NY 10038 Thomas White 03/01/2017 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 THOMAS WHITE Appeal 2014-006021 Application 12/961,016 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Thomas White (“Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—19, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2014-006021 Application 12/961,016 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to methods and systems for providing fuel information for aircraft. See, e.g., Spec, 2—5. Claims 1, 9, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method, comprising: receiving current parameters for a departing airport and an arriving airport for a flight segment of an aircraft, wherein the current parameters include a runway configuration and a weather pattern for each of the departing airports and arriving airports; comparing the current parameters to a compilation of historical parameters to determine the historical parameters that correlate to the current parameters; determining an off-to-on time for the flight segment based on the historical parameters that correlate to the current parameters; and determining an expected fuel usage for the flight segment based on the off-to-on time. The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims EVIDENCE on appeal: Baiada Baker US 2006/0095156 A1 May 4, 2006 US 2010/0191458 A1 July 29, 2010 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1, 3—7, 9-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Baker. Final Act. 2—11. 2 Appeal 2014-006021 Application 12/961,016 II. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baker and Baiada. Id. at 12—13. ANALYSIS Rejection I— Claims 1, 3—7, 9—17, and 19 as anticipated by Baker Appellant presents argument against the rejection of claims 1 and 3—7 together (see Appeal Br. 4—6), and relies on the same arguments directed to claim 1 when addressing the rejection of claims 9-17 and 19 (see id. at 7). We select independent claim 1 as representative of the issues that Appellant presents in the appeal of this rejection, with claims 3—7, 9-17, and 19 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner found that Baker discloses a method including all of the steps recited in independent claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. Appellant argues that Baker does not disclose each and every step of the claim, which is premised on a contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “runway configuration” is unreasonably broad. See Appeal Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2—6. Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue raised in this appeal centers on the appropriate claim interpretation of current parameters including a “runway configuration,” as recited in claim 1. In short, although we appreciate that Appellant’s proffered interpretation of “runway configuration” as relating to “the manner of use of the physical runway structure, and not the physical structure itself’ (Appeal Br. 6) may be reasonable, it does not follow that the Examiner’s broader interpretation of “runway configuration” as relating to “runway length, hours of operation, weight requirements, and the like for the selected aircraft type” (Final 3 Appeal 2014-006021 Application 12/961,016 Act. 3) is unreasonable. The relevant inquiry is not whether Appellant’s suggested narrow interpretation is reasonable; rather, it is whether the Examiner’s broader interpretation is unreasonable—Appellant’s arguments, which focus on supporting their interpretation, do not demonstrate this to be. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, which we sustain. We address Appellant’s principal argument below simply as a matter of emphasis. During patent examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, with claim language being read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, in the absence of any special definition in the specification, claim terms are to be given their plain meaning—that is the ordinary and customary meaning for a person of ordinary skill in the art—unless the plain meaning would be inconsistent with the specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see also MPEP §2111.01. Here, a plain meaning of “configuration” includes a “relative arrangement of parts or elements,” including “shape”; a “functional arrangement”; or “something (as a figure, contour, pattern, or apparatus) that results from a particular arrangement of parts or components,” all of which are consistent with the use of this term within Appellant’s Specification. See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003); see also Spec. 117 (noting that “there may be many ways to categorize runway configurations”). Accordingly, the disputed “runway configuration,” in the context of the claim language, would be such an arrangement, including shape, of a runway. Notably, such a reasonable 4 Appeal 2014-006021 Application 12/961,016 interpretation of “runway configuration” is not limited to the manner of operational use of the physical structure of the runway, as Appellant urges (see Appeal Br. 4—6), but also may encompass a physical arrangement such as shape of the runway, which is defined at least in part by runway length, as the Examiner explains (see Ans. 13—14). We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because the underlying contention relied upon is misplaced. Even accepting that Appellant’s suggested understanding of “runway configuration” is a reasonable interpretation of the term, this does not lead to a conclusion that the Examiner’s broader interpretation of the term is not also reasonable. Such is the case here. As discussed supra, examiners are obligated to construe claim terms according to their broadest reasonable interpretation, which is precisely what the Examiner has done. After careful consideration of all the evidence, we determine that the findings relied upon from Baker, particularly regarding consideration of runway length, fall within a broad—but reasonable—interpretation of “runway configuration” as claimed. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 3—7, 9-17, and 19 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Baker. Rejection II— Claims 8 and 18 as unpatentable over Baker and Baiada With respect to the rejection of these claims, Appellant does not set forth any additional substantive arguments separate from the argument discussed supra', instead, Appellant expressly relies on “the reasons 5 Appeal 2014-006021 Application 12/961,016 discussed above with reference to the rejection of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, for the same reasons Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, Appellant also does not apprise us of error in the rejection of these claims, which we likewise sustain. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—7, 9—17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Baker. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baker and Baiada. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation