Ex Parte Allen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

11180202 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID L. ALLEN
____________

Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,2021
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY L. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed on July, 13, 2005. The Real Party in Interest is The
Boeing Company. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to communications systems and
particularly (but not exclusively) to a portable electronic flight bag device
that can interface with an electronic flight bag system installed in an aircraft.
(Spec. 1, ¶ [0001].)2

Representative Claim
1. An electronic flight bag apparatus comprising;

an electronic flight bag (EFB) system installed in an
aircraft and configured to interface with a ground network via
one or more communication systems of the aircraft, the EFB
system further configured to perform at least part of a flight-
related application; and

a portable EFB device configured to perform at least part
of the flight-related application when not connected with the
EFB system and, when on the aircraft, connectible with the
EFB system via a trusted link and secure connection to perform
at least part of the flight-related application in coordination with
the EFB system.

2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed March 22, 2010; and Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed Dec. 16, 2009. We also
refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Jan, 20, 2010.
Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

3
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stefani (U.S. Patent No. 7,149,612 B2, issued Dec. 12,
2006, filed Jan. 5, 2004) and Williams (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0021969
A1, published Jan. 27, 2005).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of representative claims 1, 4, 5, and 7. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
1. Under § 103, did the Examiner err in in finding that the cited
references collectively would have taught or suggested:
an electronic flight bag (EFB) system installed in an aircraft
and configured to interface with a ground network via one or
more communication systems of the aircraft, the EFB system
further configured to perform at least part of a flight-related
application
(emphasis added) within the meaning of independent claim 1 and the
commensurate language of independent claims 10 and 15?
2. Under 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references collectively would have taught or suggested “a plurality of
electronic flight bags (EFBs), and the portable EFB device
communicates with one or more of the EFBs via the secure
connection,” within the meaning of claim 4?
3. Under 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references collectively would have taught or suggested “wherein the EFB
Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

4
system and the portable EFB device each comprise one or more application
modules, and wherein a module for an application of the portable EFB
device communicates with a module of the EFB system for the same
application via a software interface layer” (emphasis added), within the
meaning of claim 5?
4. Under 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references collectively would have taught or suggested “wherein the
modules for a given application are in communication only with one another
via the messaging clients,” within the meaning of claim 7 and commensurate
language of claims 12 and 19?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or
set aside in the analysis as follows.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 13, and 14-18
Electronic flight bag (EFB) system
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Stefani fails to teach or suggest
“an electronic flight bag (EFB) system installed in an aircraft”. (App. Br.
10.) Appellant argues that the phrase “EFB system” has a meaning that is
well-known in the art. (Id.) Therefore, the quick access recorder (QAR)
data system of Stefani cannot reasonably be interpreted as an EFB system
installed in an aircraft, in spite of the fact that a portable Class 2 EFB might
be temporarily attached to it. (Id.) We disagree.
Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

5
The Examiner found that Stefani describes a system for monitoring
and reporting a vehicle’s (aircraft’s) quick access recorder (QAR) data on a
removable and portable hardware component and the removable and
portable hardware component is an EFB. Further, the Examiner concluded
that the recited “EFB system” reads on Stefani’s monitoring system. (Ans.
13.) We conclude that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “EFB
system” is reasonable in light of Appellant’s Specification. (Ans. 13-14.)
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion
that Stefani teaches or suggests the QAR is part of an EFB system as claimed
because it is installed, even if temporarily, on an aircraft, is connectable to a
EFB device (hardware component 200), and performs flight-related
applications. (Ans. 13; Stefani, col. 3, ll. 4-8.)
Appellant’s arguments also appear to suggest that because claim 1
recites that the EFB system is installed, a Class 3 system is inherent. (Reply
Br. 9-10.) While Appellant’s description states that a Class 3 EFB system is
installed on an aircraft (Spec. 1, ¶[0002]) it does not necessarily follow that
any EFB system installed on the aircraft is a Class 3 EFB. Therefore, we
will not read Appellant’s description into the claims.
Claim 10
Appellant contends that claim 10 also recites “the information
transferred when at least part of the flight-related application is performed
by the portable EFB device in coordination with performance of at least part
of the same flight-related application by the at least one of the EFBs.” The
Examiner found that Appellant argued limitations that are not recited in
claim 10. (Ans. 17.) Appellant did not dispute the substance of the
Examiner’s arguments, but instead argues the meaning of “installed.”
Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

6
(Reply Br. 12.) Accordingly, we find Appellant’s arguments are
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Claim 11
Appellant contends that Stefani does not teach or suggest the
limitations recited in claim 11. (App. Br. 14.) The Examiner’s rejection
relied upon Williams to teach or suggest the “router” as claimed. (Ans. 17.)
Appellant further contends that there is no motivation to add the
router of Williams to the teachings of Stefani. (Reply Br. 12.) We disagree.
It is our view the Examiner relied on Williams to demonstrate that it
was well known at the time of Appellant’s invention to include a router in
the network as taught by Stefani. We find that such an arrangement is
merely a combination of familiar elements that yields predictable results.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
determining that the cited combination of references collectively would have
taught or suggested an EFB system installed in an aircraft, as claimed (see
supra claim 1), and also including a router in the system as taught by
Williams.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 15, as well as associated dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11,
13, 14, and 16-18.
Plurality of electronic flight bags (EFBs)
Appellant contends that because the Examiner does not distinguish
between the claimed EFB system and the EFB device, the Examiner has not
shown the Stefani teaches or suggests a plurality of EFBs, as recited in
dependent claim 4. (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 11.) Appellant further contends
Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

7
that even if Stefani disclose a plurality of EFBs the portable components 400
of Stefani are not disclosed as communicating with each other via the on-
board data communication network 200, nor would such communication
between the portable components 400 be inherent in the system of Stefani.
(Id.) We disagree.
As noted above, we find that Stefani teaches or suggests and EFB
system. We further agree with the Examiner’s findings and ultimate
conclusion that Stefani teaches or suggests a plurality of removable
hardware components 400 (EFBs). (Ans. 15; Stefani, Fig. 1.) Stefani
further discloses that the onboard communication network which connects
the portable EFBs through network 200, may exchange information within
the vehicle. (Stefani, col. 4, ll. 34-36) Therefore, we conclude that Stefani
would have taught or at least suggested a portable EFB that communicates
with one or more of the EFBs, as claimed.
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting dependent claim 4. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5 - A module for an application of the portable
EFB device communicates with a module of the EFB system
for the same application via a software interface layer
Appellant contends that the cited references, namely Stefani, fail to
teach or suggest a software interface layer. Appellant further contends that a
software interface layer would not be necessarily inherent in any of the
components within the meaning of claim 5. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 10-11.)
The Examiner, on the other hand, contends that the exchange of
information between devices will inherently occur via a software interface
layer. (Ans. 15.)
Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

8
Stefani discloses that information exchanged within the vehicle
(aircraft) is sent to a reasoner which typically is a software application
stored within an EFB. (Stefani, col. 4, ll. 39-43.) Therefore, we conclude
that Stefani would have taught or suggested a portable EFB device that
communicates with a module of the EFB system.
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting dependent claim 5. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6
Appellants contend that the Examiner does not cite any particular
feature in Stefani as teaching messaging clients, but only points to Fig. 1,
which illustrates hardware components. (App. Br. 12.)
The Examiner found that Stefani disclose the limitations of claim 6
(Ans. 16.) We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant further argues that there does not even appear to be
disclosed any software application interaction between a device 400 and the
rest of the QAR system for which a messaging client may be used. (Reply
Br. 11.) We disagree.
As noted supra with regards to claim 5, Stefani teaches or suggests an
onboard communication network and software applications used to
exchange information within the aircraft.
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 6. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim
6.

Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

9
Modules for a given application are in communication
only with one another
Appellant contends that there is no explicit or inherent teaching in
Stefani of the recitations of claims 7, 12, or 19. Appellant further contends
that the QAR capability of Stefani is not described in any detail other than
with reference to Fig. 3-5. (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 12.)
The Examiner found that Stefani teaches an EFB application
(QARMAN) and eFlightDeck program that are used to manage all
applications on the EFB and effectively manage communications between
modules. (Ans. 16.) We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with
respect to representative claim 7.
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting dependent claim 7. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 7 and claims 12 and 19.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

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).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2010-006791
Application 11/180,202

10

tkl