`
`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