throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re inter partes review of:
`U.S. Patent RE 39,618 to Levine
`
`Filed: Herewith
`
`For: Remote, Aircraft, Global, Paperless
`Maintenance System
`
`Atty. Docket:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Albert Helfrick in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`review of U.S. Patent No. RE 39,618
`
`1, Albert Helfrick, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for The Boeing Company for the
`
`above-captioned Inter Partes review proceeding.
`
`I understand that this proceeding
`
`involves U.S. Patent No. RE 39,618 (“the ‘618 patent”) entitled Remote, Aircraft,
`
`Global, Paperless Maintenance System.
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification and claims of
`
`the ‘6l8 patent. A copy of the ‘618 patent is provided as Ex. 1001.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the following prior art, which I
`
`understand is used in the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘61 8 patent:
`
`I
`
`Increased Flight Data Parameters, 60 Fed. Reg. 13862 (Mar. 14, 1995)
`
`(to be codified at 14 C.F.R. pts. 121, 125, and 135) (“FAA, Increased
`
`FDR Parameters”)
`
`BOHNG
`
`Ex.1002,p.1
`
`

`
`Dowling & Lancaster, Remote Maintenance Monitoring Using a
`
`Digital Data Link, Proceedings of the AIAA/IEEE 6th Digital
`
`Avionics Systems Conference (1984) (“Dowling”)
`
`Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Design Guidance for Onboard Maintenance
`
`System: ARINC Characteristic 624-1 (1993) (“ARINC 624-1”)
`
`Ward, Power Plant Health Monitoring—The Human Factor, Royal
`
`Aeronautical Society, Tenth Annual Symposium (1992) (“Ward”)
`
`Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Flight Management Computer System:
`
`ARINC Characteristic 702-6 (1994) (“ARINC 702-6”)
`
`Monroe, U.S. Patent No. 5,798,458 (“Monroe”)
`
`Farmakis et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,714,948 (effectively filed July 15,
`
`1994; issued Feb. 3, 1998) (“Farmakis”)
`
`Chetail, Le CFM 56-6 Sur A320 A Air France, NATO Advisory
`
`Group for Aerospace Research and Development, June 1988
`
`(“Chetail”)
`
`Dyson, Commercial Engine Monitoring Status At GE Aircraft
`
`Engines, NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and
`
`Development, June 1988 (“Dyson”)
`
`BOEING
`
`Ex. 1002, p. 2
`
`

`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, and
`
`insight regarding the above-noted references that form the basis for the grounds of
`
`rejection set forth in the Petition.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`
`5.
`
`I have more 40 years of experience in the field of avionics and am the
`
`author of the leading textbook in the field, Principles of Avionics, 8th Ed. 2013.
`
`6.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Science in Physics from Upsala College, NJ, a
`
`Master of Science in Mathematics from New Jersey Institute of Technology, and a
`
`Ph.D. in Applied Science from Clayton University.
`
`7.
`
`From 1992 to 2015, I taught at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
`
`University, where my titles included Professor of Avionics, Professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering, Chair of the Mechanical, Civil and Engineering Sciences Department,
`
`and Chair of the Electrical and Systems Engineering Department. I recently retired
`
`and was given the title of Professor Emeritus, which is an honor reserved for a
`
`small percentage of retired faculty.
`
`8.
`
`I have received numerous awards, including the 2013 Digital Avionics
`
`Award from the preeminent technical society for the aerospace profession, the
`
`American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
`
`BOHNG
`
`Ex.1002,p.3
`
`

`
`9.
`
`My Curriculum Vitae, attached as Exhibit 1003, contains further
`
`details on my education, experience, publications, and other qualifications to
`
`render an expert opinion. My work on this declaration is being billed at a rate of
`
`$250.00 per hour, with reimbursement for actual expenses. My compensation is
`
`not contingent upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`10.
`
`I understand that, at the Patent Office, claims are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as would be read by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`III. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`11.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`12.
`
`It is my understanding that the analysis of whether a patent claim is
`
`“obvious” looks at the level of skill of those of ordinary skill in the art of the
`
`invention, the content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed invention. I understand that a combination of references will render a
`
`patent invalid if, at the time of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1002, p. 4
`
`

`
`for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the applied references in the
`
`manner of the invention.
`
`13.
`
`I also understand that, when considering the obviousness of a patent
`
`claim, one should consider whether a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine the references existed at the time of the invention, so as to avoid hindsight
`
`recreation of the patent from the prior art. I further understand that the motivation
`
`to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces, design
`
`incentives, the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, known needs or problems
`
`in the art of the invention, and/or the background knowledge, creativity, and
`
`common sense of a person of ordinary skill.
`
`14.
`
`In addition, it is my understanding that one must consider whether or
`
`not there is objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as long-felt need for the
`
`inventive solution, failure of others to arrive at that solution, commercial success
`
`of the patented invention, or unexpected results.
`
`IV.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`15.
`
`Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’618 patent, it is my
`
`opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a B.S. degree in
`
`electrical, systems, or computer engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with
`
`an airframe rating in accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85. One of
`
`BOHNG
`Ex.1002,p.5
`
`

`
`ordinary skill would also have either an M.S. or equivalent work experience, such
`
`as 3-5 years of experience in avionics.
`
`V.
`
`Background
`
`A.
`
`ARINC Standards
`
`16.
`
`Several of the publications discussed below are ARINC standards.
`
`There are three classes of ARINC standards: ARINC characteristics, which define
`
`the form, fit, function, and interfaces of avionics, cabin systems, and aircraft
`
`networks; ARINC specifications, which define physical packaging or mounting of
`
`avionics and cabin equipment; communication, networking and data security
`
`standards; or a high-level computer language, and ARINC reports, which provide
`
`guidelines or general information found by the aviation industry to be preferred
`
`practices.
`
`l7.
`
`ARINC standards are produced by committees that include
`
`participants from aircraft manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, and airlines.
`
`Long before an ARINC document is issued, drafts are circulated for comments and
`
`changes. This process can take years. Thus, the contents of an ARINC standard
`
`are well known within the industry well before the final standard is published.
`
`Once standards are published, they are available for purchase from ARINC. Thus,
`
`ARINC 624-1 was available to the public by August 30, 1993, the “published” date
`
`on the face of the standard. See Ex. 1014. ARINC 702-6 was available to the
`
`BOEING
`Ex. ‘I002, p. 6
`
`

`
`public by June 10, 1994, the “published” date on the face of the standard. See Ex.
`
`1016. ARINC 618-1 was available to the public by December 30, 1994, the
`
`“published” date on the face of the standard. See Ex. 1020.
`
`B.
`
`Recording Aircraft Performance And Control Parameters
`
`18.
`
`Recording of aircraft performance and control parameters predates the
`
`‘618 patent by decades. Since at least the 1950’s, aircraft used metal foil recorders
`
`to record basic performance and control parameters such as altitude and airspeed.
`
`In the 1980’s, the FAA determined that this recording technology was ineffective,
`
`and began to mandate digital flight data recorders. See Ex. 1010.
`
`19.
`
`The advent of digital flight data recorders enabled the recording of an
`
`ever-greater number of parameters. In 1987, along with mandating digital flight
`
`data recorders, the FAA increased the number of parameters to be recorded on the
`
`new generation of digital flight data recorders. See id.
`
`20.
`
`Specifically, in 1987, the FAA rule required that airplanes certified for
`
`operation above 25,000 feet or turbine-engine powered airplanes manufactured
`
`after May 1989 use a digital flight data recorder (“DFDR”) and record at least the
`
`seventeen parameters listed below, using prescribed ranges, accuracies, and
`
`recording intervals. See EX. 1010.
`
`(1) Time;
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1002, p. 7
`
`

`
`(2) Altitude;
`(3) Airspeed;
`(4) Vertical acceleration;
`(5) Heading;
`(6) Time of each radio transmission either to or from air
`traffic control;
`
`(7) Pitch attitude;
`(8) Roll attitude;
`(9) Longitudinal acceleration;
`(10) Pitch trim position;
`(11) Control column or pitch control surface position;
`(12) Control wheel or lateral control surface position;
`(13) Rudder pedal or yaw control surface position;
`(14) Thrust of each engine;
`(15) Position of each thrust reverser;
`(16) Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control position;
`and
`
`(17) Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control position
`
`21.
`
`In 1995, the FAA proposed rule included numerous additional
`
`parameters, including “latitude and longitude (when an information source is
`
`installed)” and “GPS position data (when an information source is installed),”
`
`among dozens of others. See Ex. 1011. The reference to “when an information
`
`source is installed” reflects the fact that the proposed rule did not mandate
`
`installation of every type of data-gathering equipment. However, such equipment
`
`was widely commercially available. For example, as shown in Ex. 1023, by 1991,
`
`Inertial-Based Position Reference Systems were available from manufacturers such
`
`as Honeywell and Litton, in which “GPS satnav inputs” were used to update the
`
`inertial reference. The calculation of position from a combination of inertial and
`
`BOEING
`
`Ex. 1002, p. 8
`
`

`
`GPS inputs was typical, as further reflected in the prior art discussed in the
`
`references below.
`
`C.
`
`Transmitting Aircraft Data To Ground Stations
`
`22.
`
`Prior to 1996, there were numerous well-known technologies for
`
`transmitting aircraft or spacecraft data, including performance and control
`
`parameters, to a ground station. For example, the Apollo mission to the moon in
`
`the l960’s had tracking and telemetry systems for tracking all vital systems during
`
`flight and transmitting them to the Mission Control Center in Houston. Similarly,
`
`it was well known prior to Levine’s patent application for aircraft during flight
`
`tests to record numerous parameters and transmit those parameters to a ground
`
`station for analysis.
`
`It was also well known, as demonstrated in the prior art being
`
`used in the Petition, to transmit data to the ground for maintenance analysis.
`
`23.
`
`One particular air-to-ground transmission technology that was (and
`
`remains) common in commercial aviation is the “Aircraft Communication
`
`Addressing and Reporting System,” or ACARS. The ACARS system was
`
`introduced in the late l970’s, and originally stood for “ARINC Communication
`
`Addressing and Reporting System.” ARINC, as discussed above, is a standards-
`
`setting organization in the aviation industry. The ACARS system has been
`
`defined over time through a number of ARINC standards. As of December 1994,
`
`ARINC 618-l defined key aspects of ACARS.
`
`BOHNG
`Ex.1002,p.9
`
`

`
`24. As explained in ARINC 618-1, ACARS is a “data link system” that
`
`allows communication of data “between aircraft systems and ground systems.”
`
`This communications facility enables the aircraft to “operate as part of the airline's
`
`command, control and management system.” Ex. 1020 at § 1.1.
`
`25.
`
`The ARINC 618-1 standard defined both the necessary airborne and
`
`ground station equipment for a standards-compliant ACARS system. The airborne
`
`equipment included an ACARS Management Unit (“ACARS MU”), which could
`
`be connected to (i) a VHF transceiver to access the VHF ACARS air-ground
`
`network, (ii) an HF transceiver to access the HF data network or (iii) a Satellite
`
`Data Unit to access the SATCOM ACARS air-ground network. At any given time,
`
`most ACARS MUS would be interfaced to one of the three to insure complete
`
`global coverage. Id. § 1.5.2. The VHF and HF transceivers and SDU are each
`
`transmitters that can be used to transmit data to the ground during flight. These
`
`transmitters could transmit any data that was supplied to them, and no special
`
`“configuration” was required to transmit any particular information.
`
`26.
`
`The ground—based portion of the communication network was
`
`provided by a “service provider,” which, according to the ARINC standard, was
`
`required to provide “an ACARS data link service processor and a communications
`
`network connecting the processor and the ground stations.” Id.
`
`§ 1.5.1. In the
`
`BOEING
`EX. 1002, p. 10
`
`

`
`United States, the radio and message handling network was provided by ARINC,
`
`while in Europe it was provided by SITA. Id. at Appendix B, p. 71. The ground
`
`stations could receive any data that was supplied to them. No special
`
`“configuration” was required to receive any particular information.
`
`27.
`
`By 1994, Appendix B to the prior art ARINC 618-1 standard
`
`recognized that “ACARS has been a great benefit to the using airlines. The
`
`advantages of ACARS equipment have been quickly realized [as] more and more
`
`airplanes are being delivered with ACARS equipment installed.” Ex. 1020 at 72.
`
`Appendix B gives a useful overview of how ACARS was used in practice, which I
`
`extract and quote at some length here:
`
`“There is nothing new about sending messages between the airplane and the
`ground. What makes ACARS unique is that messages concerning everything
`from the contents of the fuel tanks and maintenance problems to food and
`liquor supplies can be sent by ACARS in a fraction of the time it takes using
`voice communications, in many cases without involving the flight crew.
`ACARS relieves the crew of having to send many of the routine voice radio
`messages by downlinking preformatted messages at specific times in the
`flight. These may include the time the airplane left the gate, lift off time,
`touchdown time, and time of arrival at the gate. These basic ACARS
`functions are known as the Out Off On In or OOOI times. In addition,
`ACARS can be requested by the airline ground operations base to collect
`data from airplane systems and downlink the requested information to the
`ground. . .. The accurate reporting of event times, engine information, crew
`identification, and passenger requirements provides for a close control of
`any particular flight. Airplane system data, such as engine performance
`reports, can be sent to the ground on a pre-programmed schedule, or
`personnel on the ground may request data at any time during the flight. This
`allows ground personnel to observe the engines and systems and can alert
`
`BOEING
`
`Ex. 1002, p. 11
`
`

`
`them to problems to be investigated. The uses of ACARS are almost endless
`and vary from airline to airline. The following is a short list of ACARS
`applications which tend to be common among ACARS users... Engine
`Performance. . .. Maintenance Items. . .”
`
`Id. at 67.
`
`28. Appendix B also explains how ACARS was integrated with other
`
`avionics systems:
`
`“ACARS may be connected to other airplane systems such as the Digital
`Flight Data Acquisition Unit (DFDAU). The DFDAU collects data from
`many of the airplane systems such as air data, navigation and engine
`instruments; and in turn makes the data available to the ACARS. More
`recent ACARS installations have been connected to the Flight Management
`Computer permitting flight plan updates, predicted wind data, takeoff data
`and position reports to be sent over the ACARS network.”
`
`Id. at 68.
`
`29. ARINC 618-1 defined the syntax of messages transmitted over
`
`ACARS. This included a “message originator” character for identifying which of
`
`various aircraft subsystems generated a downlinked message. Ex. 1020 at §
`
`3.4.1.1.
`
`30.
`
`For example, the “message originator” ID code “C” was used in
`
`ACARS transmissions to indicate data from “systems intended to meet the
`
`functionality of ARINC Report 604 or 624 by performing LRU maintenance
`
`functions; e. g., CMC and CMS.” Id. ARINC 624, discussed in greater detail
`
`below, defines the aircraft “onboard maintenance system,” including the “central
`
`BOHNG
`Ex.1002,p.12
`
`

`
`maintenance computer” or “CMC.” Thus, the ARINC 618-1 standard expressly
`
`contemplated transmission of maintenance-related information from the onboard
`
`CMC through the ACARS system to a ground station.
`
`31.
`
`The message originator ID code “F” was used in ACARS
`
`transmissions to designate data from systems performing flight management
`
`functions as specified in ARINC 702.
`
`la’. The ARINC 702 standard is also
`
`discussed in this declaration. It defines the flight management computer
`
`responsible, among other things, for navigation functions. As discussed further
`
`below, ARINC 702 discusses the transmission of aircraft position information to
`
`the ground using ACARS.
`
`32. ARINC standards are designed to enable individual ARINC-defined
`
`units to communicate with one another and in compatible formats. Therefore, it is
`
`common for a particular ARINC standard to cross-reference multiple other ARINC
`
`standards. ARINC 618, as one example, contains references to 14 other ARINC
`
`standards.
`
`33. Another relevant aspect of the ARINC 618-1 standard is that it
`
`required ACARS transmissions to include an “address” field. See § 2.2.3. To
`
`recall, ACARS is Aircraft Communications, Addressing and Reporting System.
`
`The standard explicitly states that “The MU should not transmit any downlink
`
`BOHNG
`
`EX.1002,p.13
`
`

`
`messages unless it has a valid aircraft registration mark.” Id. The aircraft
`
`registration mark, sometimes called the “tail number,” uniquely identifies the
`
`aircraft. Unidentified messages or those with invalid registration marks are of no
`
`value and could even lead to what is referred to in the aviation industry as
`
`“hazardously misleading information” (HMI) and must be prohibited.
`
`D. Multiplexers
`
`34. Multiplexing is a method whereby multiple signals or data streams are
`
`combined into one signal or stream over a shared medium. In general, the concept
`
`of multiplexing is as old as electrical communications itself. Some of Thomas
`
`Edison’s more important patents involved improvements to the telegraph using
`
`multiplexing. (U.S. patent 178,221 A, 1876)
`
`35. At the time of Levine’s purported invention, the benefits of
`
`multiplexing multiple data streams over a single communications link and
`
`separating the combined data at the receiving end were well known in many
`
`communication-related arts.
`
`36.
`
`In avionics in particular, a multiplexer eliminates the need for many
`
`individual data-carrying circuits, and thus reduces wiring, equipment weight, and
`
`possible failure modes. As early as the 1970’s, multiplexing was a basic building
`
`BOHNG
`EX.1002,p.14
`
`

`
`block of avionics systems designed to collect signals for flight data recorders and
`
`to collect signals for transmission over a data link.
`
`37.
`
`The "originator IDs” in the ARINC 618 standard reflect the ACARS
`
`MU’s multiplexing functionality. The “originator ID’s” and other data identifiers
`
`permitted identification and separation of data from multiple sources transmitted
`
`over one radio frequency link. Other systems upstream of the ACARS MU, such
`
`as the ACMS and the Flight Management Computer discussed above, were
`
`themselves multiplexers because they also collected data from multiple sources
`
`and provided that data over a single data link to the ACARS MU. See, e. g., Ex.
`
`1016 at § 3.1.1 (“In this configuration, the FMC accepts inputs from one, two or
`
`three ARINC 704 IRS or ARINC 705 AHRS, one or two ARINC 743A GNSS
`
`Sensors, two each ARINC 706 Air Data System, ARINC 711 VOR, and ARINC
`
`709 DME and one ARINC 710 ILS to compute the lateral and vertical navigation
`
`functions.”); Ex. 1014 at § 8.2.1 (“The ACMS should have access to analog and
`
`discrete data and aircraft data buses. It should have the capability to acquire
`
`selected groups of data to be used in event monitoring, data recording, and report
`
`generation”) A skilled artisan understood that a “data bus” for aircraft data
`
`required multiplexing, and that generating reports with multiple parameters from
`
`multiple sensors required multiplexing.
`
`BOHNG
`
`Ex. 1002, p. 15
`
`

`
`E.
`
`Collecting, Transmitting, and Analyzing Data For Maintenance
`Purposes
`
`1.
`
`Aircraft Integrated Data Systems (AIDS) and Aircraft
`Condition Monitoring Systems (A CMS)
`
`38. Airlines have no access to data stored in the legally-mandated flight
`
`data recorder (“FDR”), which is intended to be accessed only by United States
`
`Government authorities such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
`
`and similar authorities for purposes such as accident reconstruction. Airlines have
`
`long understood, however, that data recorded in the FDR, as well as other data
`
`from aircraft sensors, instrumentation, commands and control settings, can be
`
`useful for many other purposes, including maintenance.
`
`39.
`
`In the 1970s, “aircraft integrated data systems” or “AIDS” provided
`
`“on-condition maintenance monitoring” of performance parameters such as
`
`temperature, pressure, and fuel consumption. EX. 1013, 503. Further, “in 1979
`
`some of the airlines pioneered in transmitting the on-condition monitoring data to
`
`ground facilities for immediate analysis to identify components that should be
`
`scheduled for replacement.” Id. A 1984 publication explained that this approach
`
`was “being used today by TWA, Delta, and United Airlines for scheduling
`
`maintenance on the DC-9, the Super 80, and the [Boeing] 757/767 aircraft.” Id.
`
`The transmission system that these airlines were using in the late 1970’s is the
`
`ACARS transmission system discussed above. Id. By the early 1990s, the “AIDS”
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1002, p. 16
`
`

`
`acronym was replaced by the acronym “ACMS,” which stands for “aircraft
`
`condition monitoring system.” Ex. 1014, § 1.1.
`
`40.
`
`The AIDS/ACMS stored some or all of the data that was also stored
`
`by the FDR. Airlines could use the AIDS/ACMS for real-time transmission of the
`
`data or longer term storage for later access. This gave the airlines access to data
`
`recorded by the FDR and other data without jeopardizing the integrity of the FDR
`
`recorded data. AIDS/ACMS could simply record the same parameters that went to
`
`the FDR, or could record additional parameters.
`
`41.
`
`One of the purposes of these AIDS/ACMS systems was to track
`
`parameters and monitor trends that would predict when systems on the aircraft
`
`might need to be repaired or replaced. This permitted a proactive approach to
`
`maintenance. Rather than merely perform maintenance after a failure had already
`
`occurred, an airline could predict a possible failure and perform maintenance
`
`before failure, thus greatly enhancing the safety of the aircraft and reducing the
`
`time when an aircraft needed to be grounded As explained in ARINC 624-1:
`
`“[p]erformance trends determined from this data can be used to monitor the health
`
`of systems that are subject to degradation. This condition monitoring permits the
`
`planning of timely corrective action, thereby avoiding unscheduled maintenance
`
`actions that disrupt airplane service.” Ex. 1014 at § 2.2.3; see also id. at § 3.2.4
`
`BOHNG
`
`EX.1002,p.17
`
`

`
`(“ACMS may be used to allow analysis of trends and prediction of future
`
`maintenance needs.”). One example was to analyze the Vibration signature of an
`
`engine, a Very reliable tool for identifying worn bearings or other faults long before
`
`they caused engine failures.
`
`42.
`
`As discussed above, transmitting AIDS/ACMS data to the ground
`
`over ACARS was well known since at least the 1970’s. The transmission of
`
`AIDS/ACMS data over ACARS is also discussed in the ARINC 624-1 (Onboard
`
`Maintenance System) standard, which provides that “[t]he data to be passed from
`
`the aircraft to the ground should include failure data, failure history data, reports
`
`firom the ACMS, and other appropriate aircraft maintenance status data.” Ex. 1014
`
`at § 3.4.1; see also id. at 8.2.6 (ACMS should be able to route reports to data link
`
`such as ACARS).
`
`43. AIDS/ACMS included ground-based software components. See, e. g.,
`
`Ex. 1014 at § 8.1 (“The Airplane Condition Monitoring System (ACMS) is an
`
`airplane and flight performance monitoring system supported by Ground Based
`
`Support Software (GBSS).”). AIDS/ACMS systems were highly customizable by
`
`the airline and could be used to collect different parameters at different times or
`
`triggered by different thresholds, depending on the needs of the airline. The
`
`ground-based software was used for such functions as reprogramming and
`
`BOEING
`
`Ex. 1002, p. 18
`
`

`
`customizing the specific parameters to be collected by the AIDS/ACMS and
`
`defining the reports to be generated. See id. at §§ 8.5-8.5 .5.
`
`44.
`
`In addition, it was known to use ground-based software for further
`
`analysis of the data obtained from the ACMS. For example, Ground-Based Engine
`
`Monitoring, “GEM” software from CFMI and General Electric and the COMPASS
`
`software from Rolls Royce calculated engine trends and generated alerts based on
`
`condition monitoring data. See Ex. 1015, Ex. 1018, Ex. 1019.
`
`45.
`
`A skilled artisan would have understood that the ground-based
`
`computers used to run analysis software could also be used for “archiving.”
`
`“Archiving,” or long-term storage, is an inherent capability of any non-volatile
`
`computer memory. The structure of the memory is not affected by the content it
`
`archives, or the fact the content is stored for a longer as opposed to a shorter period
`
`of time.
`
`2.
`
`BITE data
`
`46.
`
`Complementary to the ACMS, it was also known in the prior art to
`
`collect fault data from “Built In Test Equipment” or “BITE.” These data, which
`
`performed “the fault detection and performance monitoring function” for each
`
`component or “line replaceable unit” (LRU, sometimes called a “member system”)
`
`had a communication link to the CMC. See Ex. 1014, §§ 1.3, 3.1, 4.1.1.
`
`BOEING
`
`EX. 1002, p. 19
`
`

`
`47. As the complexity of aircraft increased, so too did the number of
`
`failure modes for aircraft systems. Accordingly, self-testing of aircraft equipment
`
`became necessary to meet the safety standards set by civil aviation authorities.
`
`Built in test, BIT, or built in test equipment, BITE, has been a part of aircraft
`
`design since the 1970’s. BITE, or BIT, (the terms are identical in meaning), is
`
`primarily required for locating latent faults, i.e., system failures that occur when
`
`the system is not being used. An example is an automatic landing guidance system
`
`known as autoland. BITE will detect failure in the autoland system even if the
`
`autoland system is not activated. This permits the crew to prepare for a landing
`
`without the failed system, rather than discover at the most critical point of the
`
`flight, final approach and landing, that the autoland system has a fault. Virtually
`
`every system in an aircraft prior to 1996 provided data from a built-in self-test
`
`function.
`
`48.
`
`Just as it was known in the prior art to perform ground-based analysis
`
`of ACMS data, it was also known in the prior art to perform ground-based analysis
`
`of BITE data. For example, Dowling proposes a ground-based expert system for
`
`fault isolation based on BITE data. See Ex. 1013 at 504 and Fig. 2.
`
`3.
`
`Central Maintenance Computers
`
`49.
`
`In the late 1980’s, the “central maintenance computer” or “CMC” was
`
`introduced as a system for, among other things, central collection and processing
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1002, p. 20
`
`

`
`of BITE. As shown in ARINC 624-l, the CMC could also be integrated with the
`
`condition monitoring function. See Ex. 1014 at p. 57 (“Attachment 1”),
`
`reproduced below.
`
`ON]!OAR!) MADITENAVCE SYSIEM
`
`W\T(lMN1'mAN¢l
`1\CCBS‘-“E?-‘FEW-3
`
`mv_r_uaLE
`nut
`
`n.Imu.mnEIL
`mu
`ma:-. mu unmx-.2 pg;-1.-.n
`
`swam’
`nurture
`
`EE.‘~Tl
`3-L|Dl'TE.'.-U~‘C'F
`I‘.flk{?'n_-'1‘lJt
`
`_
`
` :
`
`Bl‘|'B.V.‘E.\IEE?. 5\'S‘i‘E§l'a
`
`ACMSHBEBEEE
`
`50.
`
`The development of the Central Maintenance Computer was
`
`important for implementing “fault tolerance.” Well before the patent was filed in
`
`1996, aircraft had progressed to such a level of complexity and implemented so
`
`many redundant systems to enhance safety that aircraft needed to be capable of
`
`being dispatched to fly with known faults. For example, if one system reported a
`
`fault but a second, redundant system was operating without any reported faults,
`
`safety rules might allow that aircraft to continue to fly. This required faults be
`
`detected and analyzed prior to each departure to insure a “safe to fly” condition.
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1002, p. 21
`
`

`
`51. A further relevant function of the CMC was to collect configuration
`
`information and make it available to the various output devices. As stated in
`
`ARINC 624-1, the CMC collected “hardware and software configuration
`
`identification data,” including “hardware and software part numbers or combined
`
`part number, serial number, modification status, and programmable options in
`
`effect (e.g., pin programmable options)?’ Id., § 3.2.2.2.7.
`
`52.
`
`The CMC interfaced with output devices, such as the ACARS system
`
`depicted in the figure above as the “data link.” As explained in ARINC 624-1,
`
`“[t]he data to be passed from the aircraft to the ground should include failure data,
`
`failure history data, reports from the ACMS, and other appropriate aircraft
`
`maintenance status data.” Id. at § 3.4.1.
`
`53.
`
`As noted above, over a decade prior to the Levine patent, Dowling
`
`proposed a ground-based expert system for analysis of BITE data and fault
`
`isolation. Levine’s description of a ground-based expert system for fault isolation
`
`was therefore at least a decade old when the patent was filed. In fact, not only was
`
`it old, it had been overtaken by more advanced technology. By the time of
`
`Levine’s patent application, on-board computer systems had improved to the point
`
`that they could perform fault isolation on the aircraft, rather than relying on
`
`ground-based systems. The 747-400, for example, had a central maintenance
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1002, p. 22
`
`

`
`computer that could “consolidate the symptoms from multiple LRUs on the
`
`airplane and provide a diagnosis of the problem.” See Ex. 1024 at 486.
`
`54.
`
`In any event, Dowling recognized that diagnostic analysis could be
`
`performed either on the aircraft or on the ground or both. See Ex. 1013, 505 (“A
`
`flight-line tester, referred to as the Avionics Fault Tree Analyzer (AFTA), has been
`
`developed to access and analyze the BIT data (4). The analyzer serves as an
`
`“expert system” that conducts a diagnostic analysis emulating an experienced
`
`maintenance technician in order to isolate a fault to the SRA [shop replaceable
`
`assembly] level. Although the AFTA is currently ground support equipment, the
`
`functions performed could be incorporated into the airborne processor or in a
`
`ground system with fault data transmitted to the ground station using a data link. ”)
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`A.
`
`“Performance and Control Parameters”
`
`55.
`
`The phrase “performance and control parameters” is not a term of art
`
`in the avionics industry. However, the word “parameter” commonly refers to a
`
`measurable property of a system characteristic or behavior. There are a large
`
`number of such measurable properties of an aircraft. These include continuously
`
`variable parameters, such as airspeed or altitude, as well as parameters called
`
`“binaries” which are on/off type of information, such as “gear up/down,” reverse
`
`thrusters on/off, etc. The large number of measured parameters on an aircraft can
`
`BOEING
`Ex. 1002, p. 23
`
`

`
`be seen, for example, in FAA, Increased FDR Parameters, which listed dozens of
`
`parameters that the FAA proposed to require to be recorded in a flight data
`
`recorder. See Ex. 1011. Beyond these required parameters, there were many more
`
`parameters that could be and were measured. Before Levine filed his patent
`
`application, commercial aircraft had thousands of parameters in the available data
`
`stream that engineers could choose to measure for maintenance, troubleshooting,
`
`or other purposes.
`
`56. Most if not all of the parameters in the available data stream of a
`
`commercial aircraft would have been considered “performance” parameters by a
`
`skilled artisan. Most parameters would normally relate to the perfor

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket