Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2019006461 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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.
14/602,485 01/22/2015 Richard A. Poisson 78428US01-U100-012714 4270
113529 7590 03/02/2021
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
IRADUKUNDA, HERVE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD A. POISSON

Appeal 2019-006461
Application 14/602,485
Technology Center 2100

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11–14. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006461
Application 14/602,485

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
“The present invention relates generally to aircraft electronic systems,
and in particular to a modular system for aircraft electronic components.”
Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of disputed subject
matter.
1. A signal interface unit for use on an aircraft, the signal
interface unit comprising:
a single microcontroller;
a plurality of connectors each connected to the microcontroller;
a first communication link connected between the
microcontroller and each of the plurality of connectors, wherein
the microcontroller is configured to transmit and receive data
on the first communication link;
a second communication link connected to the microcontroller,
wherein the microcontroller is configured to send and receive
data on an aircraft data bus using the second communication
link;
a third communication link, having a communication protocol
different from the first and second communication links,
connected between the microcontroller and each of the plurality
of connectors; and
a fourth communication link, having a communication protocol
different from the first, second, and third communication links;
wherein the microcontroller is configured to provide data on the
first, third, and fourth communication links to the second
communication link.
Appeal Br. 9.
Rejections
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Azadet (US 2005/0114581 A1; May 26, 2005), Boolos
Appeal 2019-006461
Application 14/602,485

3
(US 2004/0015630 A1; Jan. 22, 2004), and Lucas (US 6,275,501 B1;
Aug. 14, 2001). Final Act. 4–8.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, and Hall (US 2009/0323704 A1;
Dec. 31, 2009). Final Act. 8–11.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, and Smith (US 2007/0145191 A1; June 28, 2007).
Final Act. 11–12.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, and Rothert (US 6,141,610; Oct. 31, 2000).
Final Act. 13–14.
Claims 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, and Cole (US 7,162,554 B1; Jan.
9, 2007). Final Act. 14–20.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Cole, and Hall. Final Act. 20–21.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Cole, and Smith. Final Act. 22–23.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Cole, and Rothert. Final Act. 23–25.
OPINION
Appellant addresses all rejections by arguing that all independent
claims recite “communication links ‘connected between the microcontroller
and each of the plurality of connectors[]’” and none of the applied references
teach or suggest this feature. Appeal Br. 6–8. Appellant’s argument does
not rebut the Examiner’s determinations and, therefore we are unpersuaded
Appeal 2019-006461
Application 14/602,485

4
of Examiner error and thus sustain the obviousness rejections. We address
the issues with reference to claim 1.
The Examiner finds Azadet’s Figure 3—which we have partially
reproduced and annotated (red) below—teaches microcontrollers 330-N,
connectors 350-N, and communication links 340-N “connected between [a]
microcontroller and each of the plurality of connectors” (claim 1).
Final Act. 3, 5; Ans. 4. The Examiner proposes to reconfigure the
microcontrollers 330-N as a single microcontroller because claim 1 recites a
Azadet’s “FIG. 3 is a schematic block diagram illustrating the
universal peripheral controller.” Azadet ¶ 12. We have
partially reproduced and annotated (red) the figure above.
Appeal 2019-006461
Application 14/602,485

5
single microcontroller connected as-such to the connectors, and in view of
Lucas’ Figure 1. Final Act. 3–6; Ans. 5. The Examiner also notes that, like
Azadet’s microcontrollers 330-N, Lucas’ microcontroller is media access
control 11 (i.e., MAC) connected to physical sublayers 12, 13 (i.e., PHY).
Final Act. 3, 5–6.
Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s above reading of claim 1’s
microcontroller, connectors, and communication links (connecting the
microcontroller and connectors) on Azadet’s Figure 3 embodiment as
modified in view of Lucas. See Ex Parte Frye, Appeal No. 2009–006013
2010 WL 8889747 (BPAI Feb. 26, 2010) (precedential) (explaining an
appellant’s burden of rebuttal), available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/
bpai/decisions/prec/fd09006013.pdf. For example, Appellant does not show
the Examiner’s proposed modification is unreasonable. Appellant instead
attacks the Azadet and Lucas references individually, whereas the argued
claim features are read on Azadet as modified in view of Lucas. See In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Nor does Appellant show the Examiner’s claim interpretation is
unreasonable. Appellant merely alleges (i.e., without submitting evidence or
reasoning in support) the claim requirement for individual communication
links “connected between the microcontroller and each of the plurality of
connectors” (claim 1’s first and third communication links) means the
“microcontroller is connected to each of the plurality of connectors via all of
the . . . communication links, allowing a subsystem module to connect to any
of the connectors using any of the communication links.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2019-006461
Application 14/602,485

6
Attorney’s contention does not rebut the Examiner’s determination that the
claim requirement can mean the connection structures of the links are
located in an area between the microcontroller and connectors (Ans. 5–6).
See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming because
appellant “merely argued that the claims differed from [the prior art], and
chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference.”). This is the
only Appellant’s argument that “connected between” would convey
Appellant’s proffered interpretation and not the Examiner’s proffered
interpretation. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An
assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney
argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a
prima facie case of obviousness.”); see also Jung, 637 F.3d at 1363
(“[I]dentification of where [the] limitation . . . is shown in the prior art . . .
was more than sufficient” for the applicant to “determine what the issues are
on which he can or should produce evidence.” (emphasis added)).
OVERALL CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11–14.

Appeal 2019-006461
Application 14/602,485

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. References Affirmed Reversed
1, 6 103 Azadet, Boolos, Lucas 1, 6
2, 3 103 Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Hall 2, 3
5 103 Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Smith 5
7 103 Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Rothert 7
8, 12, 13 103 Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Cole 8, 12, 13
9 103 Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Cole, Hall 9
11 103 Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Cole, Smith 11
14 103 Azadet, Boolos, Lucas, Cole, Rothert 14
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–9,
11–14
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED