HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2021

2020006083 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 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.
15/137,546 04/25/2016 Jiri Vasek 00194-0332-00000 3493
154879 7590 05/21/2021
Honeywell/Bookoff
Intellectual Property Services Group
300 S. Tryon Street
Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
GUZMAN, JAVIER O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
usptomail@bomcip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JIRI VASEK, PETR TIEFTRUNK,
ZDENEK EICHLER, and JAN BILEK
_____________

Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3–7, 21, and 23–33, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. Claims 2, 8–20, and 22 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over
the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted
on May 10, 2021.
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, the real party in interest
in this appeal is Honeywell International Inc. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Introduction
Embodiments of Appellant’s invention on appeal relate generally to:
“providing flight briefing information during flight. More particularly,
embodiments of the subject matter relate to synchronizing electronic flight
briefing information across multiple platforms and presenting the
synchronized electronic flight briefing information via the multiple
platforms.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Representative Claim 1
1. A method for managing a flight briefing data system, the
method comprising:
establishing, by a central computer system, a first
communication connection with an electronic device and a
second communication connection with an aircraft onboard
avionics unit;
transmitting, by the central computer system, original
flight briefing data via the first communication connection and
the second communication connection, wherein the original
flight briefing data comprises at least a plurality of Notices to
Airmen (NOTAMs) associated with a pending flight;
receiving, by the central computer system, altered flight briefing
data, the altered flight briefing data comprising
(i) the original flight briefing data and
(ii) additional metadata that has been entered by a user,
the additional metadata comprising

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed December 12, 2019
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed May 12, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 22, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed
August 24, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

3
user-entered annotations to one or more of the
plurality of NOTAMs, and
visual characteristics indicating an unread status
or a previously-read status for each of the plurality
of NOTAMs;
storing the altered flight briefing data, by the central
computer system; and
synchronizing the central computer system, the electronic
device, and the aircraft onboard avionics unit, by transmitting
the altered flight briefing data via the first communication
connection and the second communication connection.
Appeal Br. 21. Claims App. (disputed claim limitations emphasized).

Evidence Relied Upon by the Examiner
Name Reference Date
Cabos US 2012/0143405 A1 June 7, 2012
Bailey et al. US 2016/0093219 A1 March 31, 2016

Rejection
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3–7, 21, 23–33 103 Bailey, Cabos

CLAIM GROUPING
Based upon Appellant’s proposed groupings (Appeal Br. 10) and our
discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the sole
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 21, and 28 on the basis of
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

4
representative claim 1; dependent claims 3, 23, and 29 on the basis of
representative claim 3; and dependent claims 6, 26, and 32 on the basis of
representative claim 6. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims or other issues, such arguments
are forfeited.3 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. Throughout this opinion, we give the claim limitations the
broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Rejection of Representative Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Issues: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err by finding that
the combination of Bailey and Cabos teaches or suggests the following
limitations of representative claim 1?

3 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“It is well established that “[w]aiver is different from forfeiture.” United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993). “Whereas forfeiture is the failure
to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the ‘intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v.
Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938)) (additional citations omitted). The two
scenarios can have different consequences for challenges raised on appeal,
id. at 733–34, and for that reason, it is worth attending to which label is the
right one in a particular case.” (alteration in original) (footnote and parallel
citations omitted)).
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

5
receiving, by the central computer system, altered flight
briefing data, the altered flight briefing data comprising
(i) the original flight briefing data and
(ii) additional metadata that has been entered by a user,
the additional metadata comprising
user-entered annotations to one or more of the
plurality of NOTAMs, and
visual characteristics indicating an unread status or
a previously-read status for each of the plurality of
NOTAMs.

Claim Construction
As an initial issue of claim construction, we construe the claim 1
limitation “NOTAM” as a well-established term of art. Turning to
Appellant’s Specification for context, we find the following description:
Here, the flight briefing data includes at least a plurality of
NOTAMs, which are notices filed with an aviation authority to
alert flight crew members of potential hazards along a flight
route or at a location that could affect the safety of the pending
flight, and the aviation authority, in turn, provides a means of
disseminating relevant NOTAMs to flight crew members.
Spec. ¶ 48 (emphases added).
As described by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a
NOTAM refers to: “[A] notice containing information essential to personnel
concerned with flight operations but not known far enough in advance to be
publicized by other means. It states the abnormal status of a component of
the National Airspace System (NAS) – not the normal status.”4 As discussed

4 What is a NOTAM (Feb. 8, 2021),
http://faa.gov/about/initiatives/notam/what_is_a_notam/

Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

6
during the oral hearing, Appellant appeared to agree that the usage of the
term NOTAM in the Specification is consistent with the FAA definition of
NOTAM as a known term of art.
We also interpret the claim 1 limitation,
altered flight briefing data, the altered flight briefing data
comprising (i) the original flight briefing data and (ii)
additional metadata that has been entered by a user, the
additional metadata comprising user-entered annotations to one
or more of the plurality of NOTAMs, and visual characteristics
indicating an unread status or a previously-read status for each
of the plurality of NOTAMs[,]
(emphases added)
as non-functional descriptive material (NFDM) merely intended for human
perception. We find no positively recited language in claim 1 in which any
of the recited steps is performed differently based on the type of content
indicated by the annotated NOTAM or flight briefing data (original or
altered).
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) guides: “where
the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a
human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the
computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or
data, no functional relationship exists.” MPEP § 2111.05 (III). Moreover,
“the nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability
to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.”
Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Therefore, as a threshold issue of claim construction, we are of the view that
Nehls, as a binding precedent on all members of the Board, is applicable to
the claims in this appeal. Nehls guides that Appellant’s claimed
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

7
non-functional descriptive material (i.e., printed matter) intended for human
perception should not be given any patentable weight.5
To be clear, we consider the claimed “original flight briefing data,”
the “plurality of Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) associated with a pending
flight,” and the “altered flight briefing data” as non-functional descriptive
material (NFDM), i.e., as printed matter, per se. See In re Russell, 48 F.2d
668, 669 (CCPA 1931) (establishing the printed matter doctrine): “The mere
arrangement of printed matter on a sheet or sheets of paper, in book form or
otherwise, does not constitute ‘any new and useful art, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter,’ or ‘any new and useful
improvements thereof.’” (Internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
We similarly construe the recited user-entered “additional metadata”
under BRI as printed matter merely intended for human perception:
“additional metadata that has been entered by a user, the additional
metadata comprising user-entered annotations to one or more of the
plurality of NOTAMs, and visual characteristics indicating an unread status
or a previously-read status for each of the plurality of NOTAMs.” Claim 1
(emphases added).
Our claim construction alone provides sufficient reason to affirm the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, because printed
matter, without more, is not accorded patentable weight. Printed matter is
NFDM intended merely for human perception, regardless of whether it
appears on a printed page or a computer display screen.

5 See also, AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1048 (Fed. Cir.
2010); King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir.
2010); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack,
703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

8
Nevertheless, to provide Appellant a complete review on the merits,
we consider Appellant’s arguments as articulated in the Briefs, infra.

Disputed Limitations of Claim 1
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “the altered flight briefing data
comprising (i) the original flight briefing data and (ii) additional metadata
that has been entered by a user, the additional metadata comprising user-
entered annotations to one or more of the plurality of NOTAMs,” Appellant
contends that “Bailey, at best, discloses that users can make dynamic
changes to a flight plan, that these changes are synchronized across multiple
systems, and that the changes and status can be viewed in real-time.” Appeal
Br. 12. As such, Appellant urges that Bailey is silent with respect to and,
therefore, does not teach or suggest “receiving . . . altered flight briefing
data, the altered flight briefing data comprising (i) the original flight briefing
data and (ii) additional metadata that has been entered by a user” (emphasis
omitted). See id.
The Examiner finds that paragraph 73 of Bailey (disclosing that pilots
can access view, modify, and upload flight information) and paragraph 110
(disclosing an efficiency and operational flight object system device that is
configured to receive annotations and other information) teaches or suggests
the claim 1 limitation “the altered flight briefing data comprising (i) the
original flight briefing data and (ii) additional metadata that has been
entered by a user.” Ans. 3.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “the additional metadata
comprising . . . visual characteristics indicating an unread status or a
previously-read status for each of the plurality of NOTAMs,” Appellant
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

9
contends “[c]onfirming that flight information has been correctly updated
and keeping records of such changes is not even remotely synonymous with
visual characteristics indicating an unread status or a previously-read status
for NOTAMS, let alone supplying additional metadata that includes such
visual characteristics.” Appeal Br. 15–16.
The Examiner cites to paragraphs 52, 59, 63, 65, and 66 of Cabos, and
reads the claim limitation “indicating...a previously-read status” on Cabos’
amendment package containing changes and amendments to flight
information. See Ans. 6. The Examiner finds “the flight information [in
Cabos] would have been accessed or read in order to provide changes.” See
Ans. 6. The Examiner also reads the claimed “visual
characteristics...indicating a previously-read status” on the presence of such
amendment. See id. The Examiner emphasizes that the claim language
refers to “an unread status” and “a previously-read status” in the alternative,
and thus only one status is required. See id. (emphases added).
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s legal conclusion that the above-referenced limitation is obvious
over the collective teachings or suggestions of Bailey and Cabos.6
We also emphasize that “the question under 35 USC 103 is not merely
what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.” Merck &

6 See Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate
the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not
expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal
conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings).

Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

10
Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added). See also
MPEP § 2123.
Applying this guidance here, we conclude that Bailey’s disclosure of a
user modifying and uploading flight information to a flight object system
device (Bailey ¶ 73), in which the flight information includes flight plans,
NOTAMs, and annotations related to updated flight plans (Bailey ¶¶ 46,
110) at least suggests the claim limitation “the altered flight briefing data
comprising (i) the original flight briefing data and (ii) additional metadata
that has been entered by a user, the additional metadata comprising user-
entered annotations to one or more of the plurality of NOTAMs.” Claim 1
(emphasis added).
We reproduce the pertinent portions of Bailey below:
Examples of flight information include, but are not limited to,
ATC flight plan, FMC flight plan, historical flight actual
information, speed profiles, weather, time, fuel, fuel categories,
pilot notes, air traffic controller notes, aircraft performance
parameters, surveillance data, subscriber preferences,
NOTAMS, loadsheets, clearances, status messages, advisories,
voice transcripts, pictures or images, FMC prediction and intent
data and the dispatched Operational Flight Plans (OPP).
Bailey ¶ 46 (emphases added).
By using such an efficiency and operational flight object system,
users such as pilots can access, view, modify, and upload flight
information in real time in an efficient and user friendly platform
instead of being limited to manual viewing and editing on paper
and entering information on installed devices such as the FMC,
which have limited viewing and processing.
Bailey ¶ 73 (emphases added).
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

11
The efficiency and operational flight object system device 515 is
also configured to receive and store annotations and other
information such as the rationale for flight information changes.
The user notes can be dynamically generated based on the current
situation or from predefined categories for common
classifications of notes. The efficiency and operational flight
object system device 515 is configured to transmit the updated
flight plan and related annotations to the on-board flight
management system or other devices on the on-board network.
The on-board network is communicatively coupled to networks
such as the Internet.
Bailey ¶ 110 (emphases added).
We also agree with and adopt the Examiner’s claim construction for
the claim limitation “an unread status or a previously-read status”
(emphases added), and interpret the claim limitation “or” as only requiring
one of the two elements (e.g., “a previously-read status”).7
We reproduce the pertinent portion of Cabos:
Upon the completion of the updating the aircraft master
document list 59, the electronic flight bag 9 sends a confirming
list of changes to the data centre 33. A data processing unit at the
data centres [(Brit. sp.)] 33 checks if the flight information in the
electronic flight bag 9 has been correctly updated. The data
centre 33 keeps a record of all of changes that have been applied.
Cabos ¶ 57 (emphasis added).

7 When a claim covers several alternatives, the claim may be unpatentable if
any of the alternatives within the scope of the claim are taught by the prior
art. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also
Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(citing Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d at 1352).

Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

12
Combined with Bailey’s disclosure of receiving user-modified flight
information (Bailey ¶ 73), we find that Cabos’ disclosure of sending a
confirming list of changes (Cabos ¶ 57) at least suggests the claim limitation
“the additional metadata comprising . . . visual characteristics indicating an
unread status or a previously-read status for each of the plurality of
NOTAMs.” Claim 1 (emphasis added). See Merck, 874 F.2d at 807.
Hindsight
Appellant additionally contends that the Examiner’s rejection is based
upon improper hindsight. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues that the
Examiner “attempts to find alleged equivalents by piecing disparate portions
of the reference together in a vain attempt to find the missing limitation” and
“provides no articulated reasoning for how the cited paragraphs teach or
suggest the required limitation.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant asserts that the
Examiner is improperly reading the reference on the claim instead of reading
the claim on the reference.8 See Appeal Br. 13–14.

8 We agree with Appellant on this point. See Appeal Br. 13–14. See Ans.
5: “The Examiner is interpreting an updated flight plan that includes
annotations and flight information changes [(Bailey ¶ 110)] is equivalent to
the claimed original flight briefing data and additional metadata entered by
the user.” (Emphases added). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has it backwards — the Examiner is interpreting the reference and reading
the reference on the claim. However, it is improper to read the reference on
the claim. Rather, the correct approach is to construe the contested claim
term(s) under BRI and then read the properly construed claim term(s) on the
corresponding feature(s) found in the reference. Cf. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“Anticipation of a patent
claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art
reference.”). Nevertheless, we understand the Examiner’s mapping.
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

13
The Examiner notes:
it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a
sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight
reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge
which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge
gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.

Ans. 4–5 (citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971)). The
Examiner further explains that the claimed original flight briefing data and
additional metadata entered by the user reads on Bailey’s updated flight plan
that includes annotations and flight information changes. See Ans. 5.
Regarding Appellant’s hindsight argument, although we are fully
aware that hindsight bias often plagues determinations of obviousness,
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, (383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966)), we are
also mindful that the Supreme Court has held that a “combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 401 (2007).
In reviewing the record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s
rejection is based on improper hindsight because Appellant does not point to
any evidence of record that shows combining the teachings of the cited
references in the manner found by the Examiner would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or would have

Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

14
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
In addition, Appellant has not identified any knowledge gleaned only
from the present application that was not within the level of ordinary skill at
the time the claimed invention was made. See McLaughlin, 443 F.2d at
1395. Moreover, Appellant has not provided any objective evidence of
secondary considerations (e.g., long-felt but unmet need, commercial
success, or unexpected results), which our reviewing court guides “operates
as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese &
Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Therefore, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not
persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding the obviousness rejection
of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 over the collective teachings and suggestions of Bailey
and Cabos. Remaining grouped independent claims 21 and 28 (not argued
separately) fall with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

15
Rejection of Grouped Dependent Claims 3, 23, and 29
Dependent claim 3 recites:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the central computer system, flagged flight
briefing data comprising flags indicating user-designated
important conditions associated with the pending flight,
wherein the altered flight briefing data comprises the flagged
flight briefing data;
storing, by the central computer system, the flagged flight
briefing data; and
transmitting the flagged flight briefing data via the first
communication connection and the second communication
connection.
(Emphases added).
Regarding claim 3, and similar to our claim construction for the
limitation “altered flight briefing data” in claim 1, we construe the claim 3
term “flagged flight briefing data” as NFDM (i.e., printed matter) merely
intended for human perception, because the particular content of the
“flagged flight briefing data” is not positively recited as changing or
otherwise affecting how any of the “receiving,” “storing,” or “transmitting”
steps of claim 3 is performed. Claim 1 (emphases added).
Appellant contends that “Bailey does not disclose or suggest flagged
flight briefing data,” pointing out the absence of such disclosure in
paragraphs 106, 107, and 110 of Bailey. See Appeal Br. 16.
The Examiner responds by citing paragraphs 84–85 of Bailey as
disclosing updating an original flight trajectory and causing a flight object
services component to set a flag indicating that a new flight trajectory is
ready for transmission. See Ans. 6–7.
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

16
We reproduce the relevant portions of Bailey:
In the example depicted in FIG. 1, the flight object services
component 120 includes a flight plan processor 126, navigation
database processor 123, aircraft performance processor 124,
weather grid processor 125, air/ground messaging service 122,
and trajectory predictor processor 121 . . . The trajectory
predictor processor 121 updates the original flight trajectory
using the aircraft state, navigation data, current and forecasted
weather information and the in situ weather information to create
an updated predicted flight trajectory with selected weather
bands in the flight object.
Bailey ¶ 84 (emphases added).
The flight object services component 120 sets a flag or sends a
message to the messaging service 122 indicating that a new flight
plan/route and/or trajectory is ready for transmission (i.e.,
uplinking).
Bailey ¶ 85 (emphases added).
Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we find that an updated
trajectory as described in Bailey teaches or at least suggests a user-
designated important condition associated with the pending flight. Also,
Bailey explicitly discloses a flag indicating the updated trajectory.
Therefore, on this record, we find Bailey teaches or suggests the claim 3
limitation “flagged flight briefing data comprising flags indicating user-
designated important conditions associated with the pending flight.”
(Emphasis added).
Accordingly, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative dependent claim 3
over the collective teachings and suggestions of Bailey and Cabos.
Grouped dependent claims 23 and 29 (not argued separately) fall with
representative claim 3. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

17
Rejection of Grouped Dependent Claims 6, 26, and 32
Dependent claim 6 recites: “synchronizing the central computer
system, the electronic device, and the aircraft onboard avionics unit
according to a timed interval schedule.” (Emphasis added).
We turn to the support found in the Specification for context
regarding the claim term “a timed interval schedule”:
Although this particular embodiment of the process 1100 begins
when a user input request is received for updated flight briefing
notices (step 1102), other embodiments of the process 1100 may
begin when updated flight briefing notices are due, according to
a timed interval schedule. For example, the process 1100 may
automatically request updated flight briefing notices every half-
hour or every hour, prior to and during flight . . . Certain other
embodiments of the process 1100 may begin when updated flight
briefing notices are sent, via a data push from a central computer
system, according to an event-driven schedule.
Spec. ¶ 74 (emphases added).
Regarding claim 6, Appellant contends that “Bailey does not disclose
or suggest a timed interval schedule,” pointing out the absence of such
disclosure in paragraphs 134 and 135 of Bailey. Appeal Br. 18–19.
However, we conclude the claim term “a timed interval schedule” is
not defined in claim 6. Nor has Appellant pointed to a limiting definition
found in the Specification. We find paragraph 74 of the Specification
(reproduced above) merely provides a non-limiting, exemplary description
of a particular embodiment of “a timed interval schedule” as recited in claim
6.9

9 It is the Appellants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the
PTO’s. See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1056. Although a patent applicant is
entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of patent claim terms, in ex parte
Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

18
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s
broader reading of “a timed interval schedule” (claim 6) is overly broad or
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the supporting description found in the
Specification (e.g., ¶ 74).
Although the Examiner relies particularly upon paragraphs 134 and
135 of Bailey to reject claim 6 in the Final Action (10), the Examiner
provides additional evidence in the Answer (7–8), also relying upon
paragraphs 10, 87, 106, 111, and 124 of Bailey. However, Appellant does
not further address the Examiner’s additional specific findings in the Reply
Brief. Arguments not made are considered forfeited. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Accordingly, on this record and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative
dependent claim 6 over the collective teachings and suggestions of Bailey
and Cabos. Grouped dependent claims 26 and 32 (not separately argued)
fall with representative claim 6. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

prosecution it must be within limits. In re Corr, 347 F.2d 578, 580 (CCPA
1965). The applicant must do so by placing such definitions in the
Specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of ordinary skill in
the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be construed.
See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (although an
inventor is free to define the specific terms used to describe the invention,
this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision;
where an inventor chooses to give terms uncommon meanings, the inventor
must set out any uncommon definition in some manner within the patent
disclosure so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change).

Appeal 2020-006083
Application 15/137,546

19
Remaining Dependent Claims
Regarding the remaining dependent claims not argued separately,
these claims fall with the respective independent claim 1, 21, or 28 from
which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 21, and 23–33 as
being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited combination of Bailey
and Cabos.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 21,
23–33 103 Bailey, Cabos
1, 3–7, 21,
23–33

FINALITY AND 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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED