Ex Parte Doyen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2012

11189733 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM GEORGE DOYEN
____________

Appeal 2010-001704
Application 11/189,733
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-25, and 27-43. Claims 2 and 26 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed systems and methods may provide a
portable data storage and display device such as, for example,
an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB), usable to query stored or
remote databases containing personal identification information
regarding individuals so that images presented on a display unit
of the device may be visually compared with characteristics of
Appeal 2010-001704
Application 11/189,733

2
the individual, and/or individual identification documents that
the individual presents.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with a key disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A data reference and personnel security identification
system, comprising:
a portable data storage and display device that includes:
a data storage unit that stores a plurality of
interactive data reference pages and separately stores at
least a first database containing personal identification
information;
a data display unit that displays at least one of (1)
the plurality of interactive data reference pages or (2)
personal identification information requested by a user
from the at least first database, the displayed personal
identification information facilitating comparative
verification of an identity of an individual based on a
comparison of the individual with the displayed personal
identification information;
a user interface that allows a user to select from
among the plurality of interactive data reference pages,
and to interact with the first database;
a data input/output interface for at least one of
transmitting or receiving data related to personnel
identification output from or input to the portable data
storage and display device; and
a data processor that processes at least one of user
inputs received through the user interface or data inputs
from the data input/output interface, and that drives the
display unit to display user-selected information,
Appeal 2010-001704
Application 11/189,733

3
wherein the portable electronic data storage and display
device is an Electronic Flight Bag usable to facilitate visual
identification of individuals.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Goodman
Hayami
Sehr
US 5,402,492
US 5,635,953
US 6,386,451 B1
Mar. 28, 1995
Jun. 3, 1997
May 14, 2002
Glaze US 6,320,974 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
Aoyama US 6,509,869 B2 Jan. 21, 2003
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-11, 15-19, 24, 25, 27-32, 36-39,
and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Glaze and Ariens.
Ans. 3-12.1
The Examiner rejected claims 12-14, 33-35, and 42 under § 103 as
unpatentable over Glaze, Ariens, and Sehr. Ans. 12-13.
The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glaze, Ariens, and Aoyama. Ans. 14-15.
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glaze, Ariens, and Hayami. Ans. 15.
The Examiner rejected claims 22, 23, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Glaze, Ariens, and Goodman. Ans. 15-16.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 26,
2009; the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 17, 2009; and, the Reply Brief
August 19, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001704
Application 11/189,733

4
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellant, and the findings of the Examiner, we address the following issue:
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in determining that
it would have been obvious to integrate Glaze’s identity
verification device with Ariens’ EFB?
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 25 each recite an EFB for performing
identity verifications. The remaining claims depend from claims 1 and 25.
Appellant does not present separate bases of patentability for the dependent
claims. App. Br. 28-29. We address only claims 1 and 25 on the merits,
below.
The Examiner finds that Glaze’s identity verification device includes
all of the claimed identity verification features – data storage, display, user
interface, and data interface – and that Ariens’ EFB likewise includes data
storage and a display. Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, it would have
been obvious to utilize Glaze’s device as an EFB, particularly “as taught by
Ariens to eliminate paper charts and approach plates in an aircraft.” Id.
Appellant argues that the obviousness rationale is unsupported.
Particularly, Appellant contends there is no rational basis for integrating
Glaze’s and Ariens’ devices so as to “eliminate paper charts and approach
plates in an aircraft.” App. Br. 21. And, Appellant contends “there is not
even an attempt by the Office Action to frame the asserted obviousness
rejection … under any exemplary rationale set forth in the Patent Office’s
guidance to its examiners.” App. Br. 27.
Appeal 2010-001704
Application 11/189,733

5
We agree with Appellant’s argument insofar that the only rational
reason for adding flight charts and EFB functionality to an ID verification
device is to provide navigation and ID verification tools within a portable,
cockpit-compatible device. If one merely wanted to eliminate paper flight
charts, as proposed by the Examiner, one could utilize Ariens’ EFB without
modification.
Nevertheless, the record evidences that the claimed invention merely
integrates a known portable ID verification system and known EFB for their
known purposes; that is, combines the known features of a portable ID
verification system and portable cockpit-compatible display system within
one device. The Answer’s “response to arguments” section reflects as much
in stating that “[c]ombining the prior art element of [Glaze’s] portable
identification system with [Arien’s] portable display system would yield the
predictable result of identifying a person on the portable device and viewing
data on the display” (Ans. 18); and that “[i]ntegrating the two portable
devices would only make things more convenient for a user, since all of the
features would be combined into a single unit” (Ans. 17). For these reasons,
there is a strong prima facie showing that the claimed invention – having
only the proposed combination of features – “simply arranges old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform.” See
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
There is no evidence, on the other hand, that the claimed combination
of features yields “more than one would expect from such an arrangement.”
Id. Appellant has not presented any rebuttal evidence of non-obviousness.
Except for attacking the obviousness rationale, Appellant merely alleges that
the proposed combination of features was beyond the ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2010-001704
Application 11/189,733

6
art. Particularly, Appellant contends that “reducing the size of the Glaze
device and incorporating the features of an Electronic Flight Bag would
overly complicate the Glaze device” and thereby “impermissibly modify the
principle of operation of the Glaze device.” App. Br. 19. Appellant also
contends there is no indication that Glaze’s device could be modified “to be
a portable and updatable display system that may be used as an electronic
flight bag” or “process the information required to be an electronic flight
bag.” Reply Br. 3-4. Such naked assertions cannot take the place of factual
evidence and reasoning. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting the patentee presented “no
evidence that the inclusion of a reader in this type of device was uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art”).
Moreover, the similarities of Glaze’s and Ariens’ devices provide a
reasonable expectation for successfully implementing the proposed
combination. On its face, the combination merely integrates: (i) a stand-
alone, portable ID verification system that has a “lunchbox”-type housing,
keyboard, display, fingerprint scanner, camera, and network-communication
device for updating its onboard database (Glazer, col. 6, ll. 4-11 and 61-64;
Fig. 2); and, similarly, (ii) a stand-alone, portable system that has a flight
bag sized housing, keyboard, display, camera, and network-communication
device for updating its onboard database (Ariens, col. 1, ll. 6-12; col. 2, ll.
32-39; col. 3, ll. 13-20; col. 4, ll. 2-16; col. 5, l. 9 – col. 6, l. 2; Fig. 1).
Given these similarities, the combination can apparently be achieved by
merely adding Glaze’s software and fingerprint scanner to Arien’s EFB.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1 and 25. As Appellant does not present separate bases
Appeal 2010-001704
Application 11/189,733

7
of patentability for the dependent claims, we also affirm the § 103 rejection
of claims 3-24 and 27-43.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-25, and 27-43 is
affirmed.
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

tkl