Ex Parte Ayotte

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 19, 2016

13773079 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 131773,079 02/21/2013 LOREN THOMAS AYOTTE 62616 7590 10/21/2016 MOORE AND VAN ALLEN PLLC FOR BOEING P.O. Box 13706 3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard, Suite 400 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12-0460-US-NP- l 65 7319 EXAMINER ROSARIO, NELSON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/21/2016 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): iplaw@mvalaw.com usptomail@mvalaw.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LOREN THOMAS AYOTTE Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention registers a mobile station of a passenger onboard a vehicle by receiving a message from the mobile station's near field communications (NFC) module, where the message includes information for registering the station with a passenger communications system. See generally Abstract; Spec. i-fi-122-50; Figs. lA---C. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 1. A method for registering a mobile station of a passenger, compnsmg: receiving a message from a near field communications (NFC) module of the mobile station by an NFC terminal of a passenger communications system onboard a vehicle, the message comprising information for registering the mobile station with the passenger communications system for radio frequency (RF) communications by the mobile station using the passenger communications system; and registering the mobile station with the passenger communications systems based on the message. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-17, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Saravanan (US 2012/0200390 Al; Aug. 9, 2012), Christofferson (US 2010/0170947 Al; July 8, 2010), and Mondragon et al. (US 2012/0174165 Al; July 5, 2012). Ans. 4--12. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Saravanan, Christofferson, ~.1ondragon, and Hansen (US 2006/0180647 Al; Aug. 17, 2006). Ans. 12-14. The Examiner rejected claim 21under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Saravanan, Christofferson, Mondragon, and Margis (US 2009/0081947 Al; Mar. 26, 2009). Ans. 14--15. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SARA V ANAN, CHRISTOFFERSON, AND MONDRAGON 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to ( 1) the Appeal Brief filed December 18, 2014 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed April 9, 2015 ("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 4, 2015 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 The Examiner finds that Saravanan discloses an NFC terminal of a passenger communications system that receives a message from a mobile station's NFC module, where the message comprises information for registering the mobile station with the passenger communications system. Ans. 4--5. The Examiner acknowledges that Saravanan lacks a passenger communications system onboard a vehicle, and RF communications using that system, but cites Christofferson and Mondragon for teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5-7. Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on Saravanan and Christofferson is misplaced because, among other things, both references pertain to airport security systems-not registering a mobile station with a passenger communications system as claimed-and, therefore, constitute non-analogous art. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2. Appellant adds that Mondragon's passenger controller 100 is not only not a mobile station of the passenger, there is no need to register this controller because each controller is (1) associated with one passenger seat; (2) part of the entertainment system; and (3) assigned a unique network address. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant adds that even if Mondragon's controller and Seat Video Display Unit (SVDU) could be considered analogous to the recited mobile station and NFC terminal, respectively, Mondragon transmits an identifier from the SVDU to the controller-a direction opposite from that claimed. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues other recited limitations summarized below. 3 Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 ISSUES I. UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Saravanan, Christofferson, and Mondragon collectively would have taught or suggested: (1 )(a) receiving a message from an NFC module of a mobile station by an NFC terminal of a passenger communications system onboard a vehicle, the message comprising information for registering the mobile station with the system for RF communications by the mobile station using the system, and (b) registering the mobile station with the system based on the message as recited in claim 1? (2) receiving information about the mobile station for registering it with the passenger communications system as recited in claim 2? (3) locating the NFC terminal for initializing an NFC transmission with the mobile station responsive to the station contacting a designated feature at the passenger's seat onboard the vehicle as recited in claim 22? II. Is the Examiner's proposed combination supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6--13, and 20 We begin by noting that a key aspect of claim 1 involves registering a mobile station of a passenger with a passenger communications system. Appellant's Specification does not define the term "registering," unlike other terms whose definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See Spec. i-f 15 (defining "circuit," "module," or "system"); see also id. i-f 73 (defining "a," "an," or "the" and "comprising"). The Specification, however, notes in 4 Appeal2015-006183 Application I3/773,079 paragraph three that current aircraft communication systems require passengers to enter a secure personal identification number (PIN) or other security code to register with the communications system. In Figures IA to IC and paragraphs 22 to 50, Appellant's disclosure details an exemplary process for registering a mobile station of a passenger with a passenger communications system on a vehicle, but does not limit the recited registration to this particular example. Although this description informs our understanding of the recited registration, it does not limit our construction of the term "registering." Accordingly, we construe the term "register" with its plain meaning which is defined, quite broadly, as "to record automatically" or, alternatively, "indicate," "to make a record of," or "note." MERRIAM WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 984--85 (10th ed. I993). With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited references for collectively teaching or suggesting the recited mobile station registration. First, it is undisputed that Saravanan and Christofferson disclose registration, albeit with an airport check-in security system. See Reply Br. 2. As shown in Saravanan's Figure I, for example, travelers provide essential registration details, such as name, address, passport number, etc., by sending that information from mobile devices I IO-I40 to "ID4Checkin Registration System" I 80 via connection 230, which can be via an NFC reader. Saravanan i-fi-153, 55. Although Saravanan's registration system is not used for a passenger communications system onboard a vehicle that uses RF communications, we nevertheless see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Mondragon for teaching that feature. As shown in Mondragon's in-flight or vehicular 5 Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 entertainment system in Figure 4, passenger controllers 1 OOa---d communicate with respective SVDU s 400 to enable passengers to control various aspects of content delivery and display on the SVDUs. See Mondragon i-fi-f 15, 36, 47-50. Although the controllers' form factor and touch screen functionality are similar to smart phones, controllers could also be laptop computers. Id. i158. As shown in Mondragon's Figures 6 and 7, the controller and the SVDU each have transceivers for cellular, WLAN, Bluetooth, NFC, and infrared communications, respectively. Id. i1 61. In one embodiment, when a passenger moves a controller within the range of the associated SVDU' s NFC transceiver, the SVDU's transceiver transmits the SVDU's identifier to the controller, and then establishes a communication path through a packet network to the SVDU, thus enabling the controller to send control commands to the SVDU to control content delivery and display. Id. i-fi-173- 74; Fig. 8. A similar process occurs in the embodiment of Mondragon's Figure 9 except that two different links with different data rates are established. Id. i-fi-1 7 5-7 6. Notably, the embodiment ofMondragon's Figure 10 routes phone calls or text messages between passenger seats, thus enabling a passenger to call another by entering or selecting the other passenger's seat identifier (e.g., "2A" indicating row 2, seat A) using the controller. Id. i-fi-186-90. To this end, the entered seat identifier of the called passenger is translated to a network address that is assigned to the controller 100 corresponding to that passenger's seat. Id. Based on this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner's findings that Mondragon at least suggests a passenger 6 Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 communications system onboard a vehicle that uses RF communications by a mobile station, namely the controller. Ans. 5---6. To be sure, Mondragon initially establishes communication between the controller and SVDU by transmitting an identifier from the SVDU to the controller in steps 802 and 804 of Figure 8-a direction opposite from that claimed as Appellant indicates.2 App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4. But we see no reason why information pertaining to the particular user of the controller could not also be transmitted from the controller to the SVDU as part of Mondragon' s registration process, particularly in view of Saravanan' s wirelessly transmitting details pertaining to a passenger, including their name, from a mobile device to a registration system in Figure 1. See Saravanan ,-r 55. Such an enhancement would, among other things, provide an additional identifier associated with a particular user of Mondragon's controller, not just their seat number-a potentially useful feature given that passengers may not necessarily remain in their initially-assigned seats, let alone use the particular controllers assigned to those seats. Consequently, a call routed to a particular seat (e.g., seat 2A) using Mondragon's system in Figure 10 may not necessarily reach a particular passenger who may have changed seats. 2 Notably, steps 802 and 902 in Mondragon's Figures 8 and 9 are labelled "Transmit identifier to SVDU" (emphasis added), yet the identifier is transmittedfrom the SVDU to the passenger controller 100 as indicated by the arrow between steps 802 and 804 in Figure 8, and steps 902 and 904 in Figure 9. Nevertheless, we still see no reason why registration information could not be transmitted to Mondragon's SVDU for the reasons noted in the opm10n. 7 Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 Appellant's contention, then, that there is ostensibly no need to register Mondragon' s passenger controller with the system because each controller is (1) associated with one passenger seat; (2) part of the entertainment system; and (3) assigned a unique network address (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3--4) ignores the above-noted advantages of additionally identifying the particular user of that controller as part of Mondragon's registration process to, among other things, facilitate communications between particular passengers using the mobile stations. Similar advantages from identifying particular users of the controllers during registration would also be realized for off-plane communications using satellite/cellular transceiver 1020 in Mondragon's Figure 10 that may involve financial transactions pertaining to particular passengers. 3 See Mondragon i-fi-1 62, 86. Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellant's arguments regarding the cited references' individual shortcomings, then, do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accord Ans. 16 (noting this point). Lastly, despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2), we find the cited references constitute analogous art. Prior art is analogous if it is ( 1) from the same field of endeavor regardless of the 3 Although Mondragon's Figure 10 labels the satellite/cellular transceiver with numeral 1010 (which is also used for the headset), we presume that this is a typographical error, and that numeral 1020 corresponds to this transceiver as indicated in paragraph 86. 8 Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Among other things, Saravanan, Christofferson, and Mondragon all pertain to systems where passengers' mobile stations wirelessly communicate data, and all involve registration, particularly in light of the latter term's broad definition noted previously. Therefore, these references are not only in the same field of endeavor as Appellant's invention, but are also reasonably pertinent to Appellant's problem. That Appellant contends that Saravanan and Christofferson are non-analogous to Mondragon (Reply Br. 7) is of no consequence here, for it is well settled that the analogous art test does not ask whether the prior art references are analogous to each other, but rather asks whether the references are analogous to the claimed subject matter-which they are. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325; see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we find the Examiner's proposed combination is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 6-13 and 20 not argued separately with particularity. Claims 2-5 and 14-17 We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 reciting, in pertinent part, receiving information about the mobile station for registering it with the passenger communications system. Although Appellant reiterates the alleged shortcomings of the cited references regarding the recited onboard passenger communications system and registering a mobile station 9 Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 with that system (App. Br. 10-11), we are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. Moreover, nothing in the claim precludes additionally receiving information about the user of Mondragon's controller-based mobile station as discussed previously, for this information would likewise be "about the mobile station," namely its user. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2, and claims 3-5 and 14--17 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 22 We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 reciting locating the NFC terminal for initializing an NFC transmission with the mobile station responsive to the station contacting a designated feature at the passenger's seat onboard the vehicle. Despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 11-12), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on the functionality of Mondragon's Figure 8 for at least suggesting the recited elements of claim 8. See Ans. 12. Appellant's contention that blocks 806 and 814 of that figure allegedly do not disclose the features of claim 22 (App. Br. 11) does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's additional reliance on blocks 800, 802, and 804 in Mondragon's Figure 8 that at least suggests locating an NFC terminal for initializing an NFC transmission with the mobile station responsive to the station contacting a designated feature at the passenger's seat onboard the vehicle, particularly in light of the corresponding discussion in Mondragon's paragraphs 73 and 74, and the relative location of the controller and SVDU at the passenger's seat as noted previously and in paragraphs 36 to 39. 10 Appeal2015-006183 Application 13/773,079 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 18, 19, and 21. Ans. 12-15. Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with independent claims 1 and 13, and allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4--5. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 underÂ§ 103. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 11