Honeywell International Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 24, 20212020003311 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation