Honeywell International Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2021

2020003311 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 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.
15/201,949 07/05/2016 Jeffrey Kent Hunter H0054752-US-2 5182
89953 7590 09/24/2021
HONEYWELL/FOGG
Intellectual Property Services Group
855 S. Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
ULYSSE, JAEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2021 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):
docket@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.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 JEFFREY KENT HUNTER, STEVE NEUHARTH,
NAVEEN VENKATESHPRASAD NAMA, and
JYOTSNA MOTUKUPALLY

Appeal 2020-003311
Application 15/201,949
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–14, and 16–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honeywell International Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003311
Application 15/201,949

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method of function prioritization in a multi-channel
voice-datalink radio, the method comprising:
suspending transmission of one or more data messages
on a first communication channel frequency when transmission
of a voice message is active on a second communication
channel frequency;
buffering the one or more data messages while the
transmission of the voice message is active; and
resuming transmission of the buffered one or more data
messages on the first communication channel frequency when
the transmission of the voice message ends;
wherein during transmission of the voice message, a
physical layer of the radio reports to a communication link layer
that the first communication channel frequency is busy when
the first communication channel frequency is actually not busy.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Burgemeister US 2006/0046715 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
Hellstrom et al.
(“Hellstrom”)
US 2008/0176557 A1 July 24, 2008
Adachi et al. (“Adachi”) US 2009/0323608 A1 Dec. 31, 2009

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–14, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hellstrom, Burgemeister, and Adachi.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
Appeal 2020-003311
Application 15/201,949

3
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that independent claim 1 stands rejected
erroneously, because the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed
features of: “during transmission of the voice message, a physical layer of
the radio reports to a communication link layer that the first communication
channel frequency is busy when the first communication channel frequency
is actually not busy.” Appeal Br. 5–9.
In relation to the Appellant’s arguments, and as the Specification
explains, a key part of the disclosed embodiments relates to implementing a
multi-function/multi-channel capability in the “physical layer”:
A significant reduction in cost and complexity is gained since
the multi-function, multi-channel capability remains fully in the
radio physical layer. The present approach also has the
advantage in that since other link layers are unaffected, there is
no need to modify industry standards to accommodate the use
of multi-function, multi-channel capabilities.
Spec. ¶ 10. The Specification further explains:
In one embodiment, the multi-mode data radio combines
an avionics audio communication function on one channel
frequency, and an avionics data link function such as the VHF
Data Link (VDL) Mode 2 function on a separate channel
frequency. The VDL Mode 2 is a carrier sense multiple access
(CSMA) communication system. Both the audio
communication function and the data link function can receive
ground transmissions simultaneously without conflict.
However, when either function transmits to the ground, the
other function loses ability to receive or transmit. This
limitation forces functions to be prioritized within the physical
layer.
The multi-mode data radio sets the audio transmit
function as the highest priority, and therefore the VDL Mode 2
transmit function is delayed until after the audio transmission
ends. According to the aerospace digital communications
Appeal 2020-003311
Application 15/201,949

4
standard RTCA [Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics]
document DO-281B, . . . there is no messaging to other link
layers that this conflict is occurring or that the VDL Mode 2
transmission is being delayed. The present method bypasses
the limitation of the standard in RTCA document DO-281B
through the use of the CSMA function residing in the physical
layer. During audio transmission, the physical layer artificially
reports up the communication link layers that the channel is
occupied and that VDL data transmission is delaying. After the
audio transmission ends, the physical layer returns the CSMA
function to normal and is able to send the message and report
up the link layers that transmission was successful. The
physical layer will queue up VDL transmission messages and
when audio transmission is complete, resume the channel
access algorithm in order to empty the VDL message queue.
Spec. ¶¶ 13–14.
The Examiner relies upon the Adachi reference for teaching the
recited “a physical layer of the radio reports to a communication link layer
that the first communication channel frequency is busy when the first
communication channel frequency is actually not busy.” See Final Act. 8
(citing Adachi ¶ 185, Figs. 2–3). See also Answer 24–28. The cited passage
of Adachi states, in part:
In the mechanism in which the transmission is performed using
CSMA, the wireless communication terminal (including the
wireless communication base station) adapts a competition
system in which the transmission is performed when the
wireless communication terminal determines that the frequency
channel is empty. CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense Multiple Access
with Carrier Avoidance) is a system in which, in order that the
wireless communication terminals are prevented from
simultaneously getting access to the frequency channel to
collide with each other in the empty time, the wireless
communication terminal gets access to the frequency channel
after the wireless communication terminal waits for a constant
fixed time and a random time while the frequency channel is
Appeal 2020-003311
Application 15/201,949

5
empty. In the case of the IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN standard
in which CSMA/CA is used, the determination as to whether or
not the frequency channel is empty is made by a Clear Channel
Assessment (CCA) mechanism which recognizes the state of
the wireless medium in the PHY layer and the status of the
virtual carrier sense in the MAC [Media Access Control] layer.
In the PHY layer, the MAC layer is notified of CCA=BUSY
when a reception electric power having a predetermined level is
detected on the frequency channel, and the MAC layer is
notified of CCA=IDLE when the reception electric power is of
the predetermined level or less . . . . The sum of sets of the
period during which the CCA signal from the PHY layer is
BUSY and the time described in the duration/ID item of the
frame which is not addressed to the MAC layer (that the
medium recognizes BUSY for the time to stop the transmission
is referred to as “NAV is set”, and the mechanism which
recognizes the medium as BUSY even if CCA is actually IDLE
in the PHY layer is referred to as “virtual carrier sense”) is
computed in the MAC layer, the sum of sets is recognized as
the frequency channel being occupied, and an exclusive period
of the sum of sets is recognized as the frequency channel being
empty.
Adachi ¶ 185.
In the Examiner’s analysis, “the MAC layer is interpreted to signify
the communication link layer as recited in the claims” and “the CCA (Clear
Channel Assessment) is a physical carrier sense and is part of the PHY (i.e.
physical) Layer.” Answer 24, 27 (emphases omitted). According to the
Examiner, “[t]he mechanism which recognizes the medium as BUSY even if
CCA is actually IDLE in the PHY layer is referred to as virtual carrier sense
is computed in the MAC layer.” Id. at 26. Further emphasizing this point,
the Examiner states: “As cited in Adachi the PHY layer is not using virtual
carrier sense, the MAC layer is the one using a virtual carrier sense to
perform further operation.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Based upon these
Appeal 2020-003311
Application 15/201,949

6
findings, the Examiner states: “[I]t is evident that the PHY layer is capable
of reporting that a channel is busy when it is actually not busy as a result of
the PHY layer using a CSMA CCA mechanism.” Id. at 27 (emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner’s conclusion on this point, however, conflicts with the
Examiner’s findings, regarding the activity of Adachi’s MAC layer (which
the Examiner maps to the claimed “communication link layer”). As the
Appellant argues:
As described in Adachi, it is the virtual carrier sense
mechanism in the MAC layer which recognizes the medium as
busy even if actually idle. Thus, such a function is not
performed by the PHY layer. Rather, as noted by Adachi
(para. 185), the PHY layer notifies the MAC layer only if the
CCA is busy or idle.
In the claimed invention, the PHY layer reports “busy” to
a communication link layer (MAC layer), when the
communication channel frequency is actually not busy.
Appeal Br. 9.
Therefore, the Appellant persuasively argues that Adachi does not
teach or suggest claim 1’s limitation: “during transmission of the voice
message, a physical layer of the radio reports to a communication link layer
that the first communication channel frequency is busy when the first
communication channel frequency is actually not busy.” Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of the other
independent claims in the Appeal (claims 8 and 19), which include
limitations similar to that of claim 1, addressed above.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–14, and
16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-003311
Application 15/201,949

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–14,
16–20
103 Hellstrom,
Burgemeister,
Adachi
1, 2, 4–14,
16–20

REVERSED