HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

14752319 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
14/752,319 06/26/2015 Robert W. Sparks H0026938 (002.2579D1) 2692
89955 7590 07/02/2020
HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 249
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
honeywell@lkglobal.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT W. SPARKS, JARY ENGELS,
and JOHN WOLTKAMP

____________

Appeal 2019-002437
Application 14/752,319
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Honeywell International, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002437
Application 14/752,319

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The application is directed to an airplane “cockpit control device . . . .
configured, upon receipt of a predetermined touchscreen gesture, to
temporarily ignore the at least one user interface control.” Spec. ¶ 8.
Claims 11–20 are pending; claims 11 and 17 are independent. Appeal Br.
22–25. Claim 11 is reproduced below for reference:
11. A cockpit control device comprising:
a touchscreen display configured to display navigational
data to a pilot and to receive touch events from the pilot;
a processor coupled to the touchscreen display, the
processor configured to:
instruct the touchscreen display to display a
plurality of user interface elements;
enter a first mode, and while in the first mode
providing a signal associated with one or more of the user
interface elements responsive to the touch events when the touch
events include contact with the one or more of the user interface
elements;
determine whether the touch event corresponds to a
predetermined touchscreen gesture; and
switch from the first mode to a second mode when the
touch event corresponds to the predetermined touchscreen
gesture, the second mode including providing, for a duration of
the touch event, a signal indicative of a value of a tuning function
not associated with the plurality of user interface elements, and
while in the second mode not providing the signal associated
with the one or more of the user interface elements responsive to
the touch events that include contact with the one or more user
interface elements.

Rejections
Claims 11–18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Valentino (US 2013/0110895 A1; May 2, 2013),
Appeal 2019-002437
Application 14/752,319

3
Chambers (US 2005/0134578 A1; June 23, 2005), and Hotelling (US
2006/0026535 A1; Feb. 2, 2006). Final Act. 2.2
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Valentino, Chambers, Hotelling, and Fleizach (US
2010/0313125 A1; Dec. 9, 2010). Final Act. 8.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “[t]he rejections fail to establish a proper prima
facie case of obviousness because the cited references fail to teach ALL of
the claimed limitations.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that
the cited paragraphs of Valentino on only contains one
sentence relating to aircraft, and fails to provide any specific
teaching of a touchscreen in a cockpit control device, or how
such a touchscreen in a cockpit control device would display
navigational data to the pilot, including user interface
elements such as navigation icons relating to an aircraft, all
of which recited in various claims.

Reply Br. 5, citing Valentino ¶¶ 7, 104, 220. Appellant further contends that
FIG. 18 of Chambers shows the “default state” with various soft
buttons and other interface elements and FIG. 19 then shows
the “virtual gesture pad 302” that includes targets for effecting
various other software controls. Notably, as illustrated in FIG
19, the virtual gesture pad 302 fills the display screen and none
of the alleged “default state” soft buttons or other interface
elements are shown in FIG. 19 with the virtual gesture pad
302. Thus, there are no “default state interface elements” still
being displayed that would facilitate a “second mode” where
interface elements are being displayed and can be touched or

2 Claims 1–10 were canceled in an after-final amendment filed Jan. 22,
2018. See Interview Summary dated Jan. 28, 2019, indicating acceptance of
the after-final amendment.
Appeal 2019-002437
Application 14/752,319

4
otherwise contacted and yet not generate a signal associated
with the user interface elements.

Reply Br. 7. Appellant additionally contends that “that there is nothing in
Hotelling to suggest a touch screen with two modes where in one mode
contact with displayed interface element does not generate the response of
the first mode, and instead provides access to the tuning the function.”
Reply Br. 8, citing Hotelling Figs. 6A, 8, ¶¶ 77, 94, 140, 142-154, 174.
Appellant’s arguments fail to show the Examiner errs in finding the
combined teachings of the cited references would have suggested the
limitations of independent claims 11 and 17. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not . . . that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
We agree with the Examiner that cockpit control devices—as
claimed—are known in the art, as evidenced by Valentino. See Final Act. 7,
citing Valentino ¶ 7.3 Valentino, as cited, also teaches use of touch screens.
See Valentino ¶¶ 110, 220 (“embodiments [can] be integrated as part of the
LCD display by incorporating touch-screen capabilities (e.g., similar to a
touch screen on an iPHONE or the like).”). Appellant does not persuasively
show the Examiner errs in finding the claimed cockpit control device,
including a touchscreen displaying navigation data, to be obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the cited references. See Advisory Act. 2;
Final Act. 4–6; Valentino ¶ 7, 220; Chambers ¶ 44; Hotelling ¶ 143.

3 Further, we note Appellant’s background supports the Examiner’s findings
regarding touchscreen cockpit control devices. See Spec. ¶¶ 3, 4.
Appeal 2019-002437
Application 14/752,319

5
Appellant’s argument regarding the deficiencies of Chambers is also
not persuasive. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Chambers teaches
navigating within a workspace comprising a first mode of fig. 18 for
interacting with control interface elements/buttons on the display,” and “a
second mode of fig. 19 for interacting with a virtual gesture pad 302 (to
effect a play or pause command) overlaid on the screen display such that the
button based commands of fig. 18 are no longer available to the user.”
Advisory Act. 2; see Final Act. 2; Chambers ¶ 44. Chambers teaches a
second mode using a “semi-transparent interface overlay” (Chambers ¶ 44),
and we agree with the Examiner this overlay teaches or suggests a second
mode including not providing a signal associated with the overlaid user
interface elements responsive to their touch events, as claimed. See Final
Act. 2. This is confirmed in Figs. 20–22 of Chambers, in which gesture
actions take place over the display of Figure 18, but do not activate the
underlying controls. See Chambers ¶ 44 (“Looking now to FIGS. 18-22,
virtual gesture pad interface 300 as [first] depicted is in a ‘default’ or non-
gesture based input state,” and the “virtual gesture pad” may be initiated by
an “initial gesture on the touch screen.”).
Appellant’s argument regarding the deficiencies of Hotelling is also
not persuasive. The Examiner finds that “Hotelling teaches providing
immediate access to a tuning function such that a value of the tuning
function is modified based on a predetermined touchscreen gesture.” Final
Act. 3–4; Hotelling Figs. 6A, 8; ¶¶ 92, 94. Appellant argues Hotelling does
not teach limitations for which it is not relied on (see Appeal Br. 19; Final
Act. 6), and therefore do not show the Examiner’s findings are in error.

Appeal 2019-002437
Application 14/752,319

6
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
cited references teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 11. Particularly,
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s reasons for combining the
teachings of Valentino, Chambers, and Hotelling. See Appeal Br. 19.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would
modify Valentino’s controls with the teachings of Chambers and Hotelling,
in the manner claimed. See Advisory Action. 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent
claim 11 as obvious in view of the prior art. Appellant does not separately
argue independent claim 17; thus we are not persuaded the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17 is in error, for the same reasons discussed above. See
Appeal Br. 15–19.
We similarly agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Valentino, Chambers and Hotelling further teaches or suggests the
“navigation icons” of dependent claim 12, the volume level of claim 13, and
the “circular motion” used as a “predetermined touchscreen gesture” and as
controller of the “value of the tuning function” as recited in dependent claim
15. See Final Act. 4, 6, 7; Valentino ¶¶ 7, 174; Chambers ¶ 44; Hotelling
¶¶ 94, 140, 143.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 11 and 17 commensurate, dependent claims 12, 13, and 15, and
claims 14, 16, and 18–20 not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 19–20.

Appeal 2019-002437
Application 14/752,319

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

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

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/B
asis
Affirmed Reversed
11–18, 20 103(a) Valentino,
Chambers,
Hotelling
11–18, 20
19 103(a) Valentino,
Chambers,
Hotelling,
Fleizach
19
Overall
Outcome
11–20