Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 46
`Entered: December 20, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`THE BOEING COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEYMOUR LEVINE,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 46
`Entered: December 20, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`THE BOEING COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEYMOUR LEVINE,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`We have authority to hear this inter partes review under
`35 U.S.C. § 6(b), and this Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`RE39,618 (Ex. 1001, “the ’618 patent”) are unpatentable.
`
`A. Background
`The Boeing Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition seeking to
`institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’618 patent
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Petitioner relies upon
`the Declaration of Dr. Albert Helfrick in support of its Petition. Ex. 1002.
`Seymour Levine (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter
`partes review on the following grounds:
`Claims
`References
`4, 5, 14, and 16
`Ward1 in view of ARINC 624-12
`8, 9, and 10
`Ward in view of ARINC 624-1 in
`further view of Monroe3
`Dyson4 in view of Chetail
`
`4, 5, 14, and 16
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`
`1 M J Ward, “Power Plant Health Monitoring – The Human Factor,” Feb.
`1992 (Ex. 1015) (“Ward”).
`2 “Design Guidance for Onboard Maintenance System,” ARINC Report
`624-1, Aug. 1993 (Ex. 1014) (“ARINC 624-1”).
`3 US Patent No. 5,798,458, filed Oct. 28, 1996 (Ex. 1017) (“Monroe”).
`4 R.J.E. Dyson, “Commercial Engine Monitoring Status at GE Aircraft
`Engines,” Oct. 1988 (Ex. 1019) (“Dyson”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`Claims
`8, 9, and 10
`
`4, 5, 14, and 16
`8, 9, and 10
`
`8, 9, and 10
`
`8, 9, and 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`Dyson in view of Chetail5 in further
`view of Monroe
`Dowling6 in view of ARINC 624-1
`Dowling in view of ARINC 624-1 in
`further view of Monroe
`Ward in view of ARINC 624-1,
`ARINC 702-6,7 and FAA, Increased
`FDR Parameters8
`Ward in view of ARINC 624-1, FAA,
`Increased FDR Parameters and
`Farmakis9
`See Decision on Institution, Paper 10 (“Dec.”), 36.
`On January 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion to Submit
`Supplemental Information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) (Paper 21), as
`previously authorized by the Board (Paper 20), seeking to submit a
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Albert Helfrick (Ex. 1042) and Exhibits A–
`C to his supplemental declaration. Patent Owner opposed the Motion to
`Submit Supplemental Information. Paper 23. On April 15, 2016, the Board
`granted Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information and
`
`
`5 P. Chetail, “LE CFM 56-5 SUR A320 A Air France,” Oct. 1988 (Ex. 1018)
`(“Chetail”).
`6 Drew Dowling and Richard A. Lancaster, “Remote Maintenance
`Monitoring Using a Digital Link,” Dec. 1984 (Ex. 1013) (“Dowling”).
`7 “Flight Management Computer System,” ARINC Characteristic 702-6, Jun.
`10, 1994 (Ex. 1016) (“ARINC 702-6”).
`8 “Increased Flight Data Recorder Parameters,” 60 Fed. Reg. 13,862, Mar.
`14, 1995 (Ex. 1011) (“FAA, Increased FDR Parameters”).
`9 US Patent No. 5,714,948, filed Apr. 16, 1996 (Ex. 1021) (“Farmakis”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`entered Exhibit 1042, and associated Exhibits A–C, into the record.
`Paper 30, 5.
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner then filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper
`33, “Pet. Reply”). Among other evidence, Patent Owner relies upon the
`Declaration of John F. Grabowsky in support of Patent Owner’s Response.
`Ex. 2011.
`An oral argument was held on September 14, 2016. A transcript of
`the oral argument is included in the record. Paper 45 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Additional Proceedings
`The parties indicated the ’618 patent is the subject of the following
`district court action: Levine v. The Boeing Company, No. 14-cv-1991 (W.D.
`Wash.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
`
`C. The ’618 Patent
`The ’618 patent is titled “Remote, Aircraft, Global, Paperless
`Maintenance System” and generally relates to a system that monitors
`performance parameters and aircraft operational parameters, and broadcasts
`this information along with aircraft identification, audio, video, global
`positioning, and altitude data, to a worldwide two-way RF network.
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’618 patent discloses that the information is
`monitored and recorded at a remote, centralized location and analysis of this
`information allows identification of problems and generation of advisories.
`Id.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’618 patent, reproduced below, illustrates an
`embodiment of the system described:
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 1, the ’618 patent discloses aircraft 10 with
`Sensor Multiplexer Receiver & Transmitter (“SMART”) 14, which can
`receive aircraft performance and control data 18, acoustic data 22, video
`data 26, and information from GPS receiver system 16. Id. at 4:57–65.
`SMART 14 periodically samples sensor signals 18, 22, 26, 44 and adds to
`each signal a sensor identification label, an aircraft identification label, and a
`configuration label. Id. at 5:1–5. Aircraft 10 equipped with SMART 14
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`transmits the sensor data over a UHF radio to communication satellite 38,
`which relays the data to Central Ground Based Processing Station
`(“CGBS”) 42 (shown in Figure 2). Id. at 5:21–28. CGBS 42 includes
`processing station 62 for data analysis and problem simulation and advisory
`module 70 for generating aircraft advisories. Id. at 5:49–53.
`
`
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 4 and 8 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and are
`reproduced below.
`4. An aircraft maintenance system for use on an aircraft having
`a flight data recorder, the maintenance system comprising:
`
` a
`
` transmitter portable to be placed on an aircraft, said transmitter
`configured for transmission of digital aircraft performance data
`across a communication network while said aircraft is in flight;
`and
`
` a
`
` central station connected to said communication network
`configured
`to receive and analyze said digital aircraft
`performance data to generate maintenance advice for said aircraft
`while said aircraft is in flight,
`
`wherein said digital aircraft performance data includes an
`identifier unique to a particular aircraft and a configuration label,
`and at least a portion of said digital aircraft performance data
`comprises data directed to the flight data recorder.
`
`8. The aircraft maintenance system of claim 4 wherein said
`digital aircraft performance data includes aircraft position data
`directed to said flight data recorder.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board will interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard as the claim interpretation standard to be applied in
`inter partes reviews). Claim terms also generally are given their ordinary
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we must be careful not to read
`a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if
`the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns,
`988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the
`claims from the specification”).
`1. “maintenance advice”
`Claim 4 recites “a central station connected to said communication
`network configured to receive and analyze said digital aircraft performance
`data to generate maintenance advice.” Petitioner proposes that the term
`“maintenance advice” be construed as “problem-specific maintenance
`information, such as trends, alerts, or isolation of faults.” Pet. 12. Petitioner
`argues that the term “maintenance advice” does not appear in the
`specification outside of the claims, but that the specification describes the
`presumably synonymous term of “maintenance advisories.” Pet. 10–11
`(citing Ex. 1001, 7:1–2). Petitioner argues that the specification discloses
`that, in one embodiment, these “advisories” “represent the latest diagnostic
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`procedures and problem specific maintenance information.’” Pet. 11
`(quoting Ex. 1001, 7:1–2) (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner agrees with the first portion of Petitioner’s proposed
`construction, but argues that the term “maintenance advice” be construed to
`further include “problem-specific maintenance information, including
`recommended maintenance actions.” PO Resp. 31–32 (emphasis added).
`More specifically, Patent Owner argues that the claimed “maintenance
`advice” must not only be information that could be used to assess or
`diagnose a problem, but must be actual advice, which recommends that
`certain maintenance activity be undertaken. Id. Patent Owner agrees with
`Petitioner that the term “maintenance advice” is synonymous with the term
`“maintenance advisories” used in the specification, but argues that the
`“maintenance advisories” rely upon the latest diagnostic procedures and
`problem specific maintenance information and, thus, must include some
`recommendation for an appropriate maintenance action. Id. at 32 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 7:1–2). Generally, we agree with Petitioner, although we see no
`need to include the examples set forth in Petitioner’s proffered construction.
`The specification of the ’618 patent broadly describes various
`maintenance advisories, including those that “can be requested and viewed
`via a plug-in terminal 76” while “the aircraft is on the ground.” Ex. 1001,
`5:17–19. Additionally, the specification describes that a “preferred
`maintenance advisory” can be based “on an expert system for fault
`isolation.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–37. Petitioner’s Declarant Dr. Albert Helfrick
`provides that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`terms “maintenance advice” and “maintenance advisories” could encompass
`a wide variety of computer-generated information useful for performing
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`maintenance. Ex. 1002 ¶ 63. None of this evidence requires “maintenance
`advice” to include “recommended maintenance actions.”
`The definition of “advice” is “information or notice given.” Ex. 3001
`(Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 32 (1971), 3.). Thus, the
`plain and ordinary meaning of “maintenance advice” is consistent with the
`aforementioned evidence, in that “maintenance advice” can include
`maintenance information, but does not require “recommended maintenance
`actions.” Patent Owner argues that this dictionary definition cited by the
`Board includes an alternative definition of “advice” as a “recommendation
`regarding a decision or course of conduct.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 3001,
`3). Patent Owner further argues that this alternative definition of “advice” is
`most consistent with specification. PO Resp. 33. Patent Owner fails,
`however, to cite to any portions of the specification to support this argument
`(see id.) and fails to explain why we should not be guided by the more
`general statements in the specification, such as the description in the
`specification that a “preferred maintenance advisory” can be based “on an
`expert system for fault isolation,” which is in no way “recommended
`maintenance actions.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–37.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “maintenance
`advice” must include recommended maintenance actions. Accordingly, we
`adopt the portion of the proposed definitions on which the parties agree and
`determine that the term “maintenance advice” means “problem-specific
`maintenance information.” See also Dec. 7–8.
`2. “configuration label”
`Claim 4 also recites “wherein said digital aircraft performance data
`includes an identifier unique to a particular aircraft and a configuration
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`label.” Petitioner proposes that the term “configuration label” be construed
`to mean “an indicator identifying or describing equipment onboard an
`aircraft.” Pet. 15. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner did not
`expressly propose a construction of “configuration label.”
`Outside of the claims, the ’618 patent specification only uses the term
`“configuration label” once, in the following description:
`SMART 14 periodically samples the sensor signals 18, 22, 26,
`44 converts all non-digital sensor signals 18, 22, 26, 44 into
`digital format, adds a sensor identification label to each signal
`18, 22, 26, 44 plus an aircraft identification and configuration
`label.
`Ex. 1001, 5:1–5 (emphasis added). In the prosecution history for the reissue
`application, Patent Owner addressed the term “configuration label” and
`stated that “even identical models of aircraft are likely configured
`differently” and that the “present invention circumvents this issue by
`transmitting the aircraft configuration along with the aircraft ID.” Ex. 1004,
`123–124. Patent Owner further stated that this configuration information
`could include “[n]avigational equipment, radios, avionics, instrumentation
`. . . hydraulic systems, electrical systems, flight controls, etc.” Id. at 123.
`“[T]he prosecution history . . . is to be consulted even in determining a
`claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation.” Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v.
`Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Microsoft
`Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Petitioner
`argues that the statements in the specification and the prosecution history
`require the broadest reasonable interpretation of “configuration label” to
`mean an indicator identifying or describing equipment onboard an aircraft,
`including the make, model, position, or version of an onboard system. Pet.
`15.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the reasons set forth by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner’s
`proposed construction. Accordingly, we construe the term “configuration
`label” to mean “an indicator identifying or describing equipment onboard an
`aircraft.”
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter 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 said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1259. “If a person of ordinary skill [in the art]
`can implement a predictable variation, [and would see the benefit of doing
`so,] § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. “[A] court
`must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior
`art elements according to their established functions.” Id. After KSR, the
`Federal Circuit has recognized that obviousness is not subject to a “rigid
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`formula,” and that “common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates
`why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.”
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`KSR expanded the sources of information for a properly flexible
`obviousness inquiry to include market forces; design incentives;
`the “interrelated teachings of multiple patents”; “any need or
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
`and addressed by the patent”; and the background knowledge,
`creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21).
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`According to Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Helfrick, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art relevant to the ’618 patent would have 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.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. According to Patent Owner’s Declarant,
`Mr. Grabowsky, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’618
`patent would have “at least a B.S. degree in electrical, systems, or computer
`engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with an airframe rating in
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85; as well as either an M.S. or
`equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in avionics.”
`Ex. 2011 ¶ 8. Thus, both declarants generally agree on the level of skill,
`although Mr. Grabowsky suggests experience is required in addition to the
`B.S. degree or the FAA Mechanic Certificate. See id.
`Based on our review of the ’618 patent, the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’618 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony
`of Petitioner’s Declarant and Patent Owner’s Declarant, we adopt
`Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the claimed invention. We are not persuaded that the additional experience
`of an M.S. or equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in
`avionics, is required, as suggested by Mr. Grabowsky, as we are unclear as
`to why the claimed subject matter is beyond the abilities of someone who
`otherwise meets applicable federal regulatory standards. Based on the stated
`qualifications of Dr. Helfrick (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–9) and the stated qualifications
`of Mr. Grabowsky (Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 6–7), Petitioner’s Declarant and Patent
`Owner’s Declarant both meet the requirements of this definition. We note
`that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time
`of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.
`
`D. Alleged Non-Functional Descriptive Material and Intended Use
`Limitations
`Petitioner argues that certain limitations in the challenged claims are
`non-functional descriptive material entitled to no patentable weight. Pet. 17.
`Petitioner argues that limitations in the challenged claims are analogous to
`limitations found to be non-functional descriptive material in the Board’s
`decision in Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883 (2008) (precedential). Pet. 17.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`In Ex parte Nehls, the Board stated that “the nature of the information being
`manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable
`computer-implemented product or process.” 88 USPQ2d at 1889.
`Here, Petitioner argues that claim 4 indicates that “digital aircraft
`performance data” is analyzed for the purpose of generating “maintenance
`advice,” but nothing in the claims at issue specifies which types of “digital
`aircraft performance data” are used to generate such advice. Pet. 16–17
`(quoting claim 4). Additionally, Petitioner argues that neither the
`specification nor the claims describe the use of configuration information or
`aircraft position information to generate maintenance advice. Pet. 18.
`Patent Owner counters that the ’618 patent “specification expressly
`describes how various flight parameters are transmitted and subsequently
`‘analyzed in conjunction with [various data] to allow identification of
`maintenance problems, on-ground safety advisories and in-flight safety
`advisories,’ including ‘maintenance actions.’” PO Resp. 8 (quoting
`Ex. 1001, 2:30–38).
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner that the limitations on the claimed
`“digital aircraft performance data” should be construed as non-functional
`descriptive material. In Ex parte Nehls, the Board stated that “‘functional
`descriptive material’ consists of data structures and computer programs
`which impart functionality when employed as a computer component.” 88
`USPQ2d at 1889. As discussed in the specification of the ’618 patent and
`set forth in claim 4, the identifier unique to a particular aircraft and
`configuration label is explicitly considered by, and, thus, may alter the
`functionality of, the claimed “central station” that is “to receive and analyze
`said digital aircraft performance data to generate maintenance advice for
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`said aircraft.” See Ex. 1001, 5:1–5, claim 4. We are unpersuaded by
`Petitioner’s implication that a lack of express disclosure of how the identifier
`is used in generating the maintenance advice, or that in some cases the
`identifiers may not alter the generated maintenance advice, is sufficient to
`render such identifiers as non-functional descriptive material.
`In addition to arguing that the claims contain limitations constituting
`non-functional descriptive material, Petitioner argues that these limitations
`amount to statements of intended use and should be not be afforded
`patentable weight. Pet. 19–21. More particularly, Petitioner argues that
`claim recitations of a transmitter “configured for transmission of digital
`aircraft performance data” and a central station “configured to receive and
`analyze said digital aircraft performance data” are merely statements of
`intended use. Pet. 20. We are not persuaded by Petitioner, however, that
`these limitations are merely statements of the intended use of the
`“transmitter” and “central station,” but instead determine that they comprise
`structural limitations for these components of the claimed “aircraft
`maintenance system.” For similar reasons as to why we are not persuaded
`by Petitioner’s arguments with respect to non-functional descriptive
`material, we are not persuaded that these claim limitations are statements of
`intended use.
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 4, 5, 14, and 16 Based on Ward
`and ARINC 624-1
`Petitioner argues that claims 4, 5, 14, and 16 would have been obvious
`in view of Ward and ARINC 624-1. Pet. 26–38; Pet. Reply 2–5. Patent
`Owner disputes Petitioner’s position, arguing the proposed combination fails
`to render the challenged claims obvious. PO Resp. 26–29. We have
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, and the
`relevant evidence discussed in those papers and other record papers. As
`described in further detail below, we determine that the record supports
`Petitioner’s contentions for claims 4, 5, 14, and 16 challenged as obvious in
`view of Ward and ARINC 624-1, and we adopt Petitioner’s contentions
`discussed below as our own. For reasons that follow, we determine that
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 5,
`14, and 16 would have been obvious in view of Ward and ARINC 624-1.
`1. Overview of Ward
`Ward is titled “Power Plant Health Monitoring – The Human Factor”
`and provides a discussion of condition monitoring systems and particularly,
`various types of Engine Condition Monitoring (“ECM”) systems that have
`been employed in gas turbine aero engines. Ex. 1015, 1. Figure 7 from
`Ward illustrates a condition monitoring system overview, and is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 7 from Ward, the system includes an airplane
`with an onboard Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (“ACMS”) which
`can continually monitor the Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (“ARINC”) databases.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`Id. at 7. Ward discloses that the onboard ACMS system can send reports via
`near “real time” data links, such as an Aircraft Communications Addressing
`and Reporting System (“ACARS”). Id. Ward discloses that the ACARS
`system provides data links that allow a multitude of messages/data to be sent
`between an aircraft and the airline ground base using VHF communication
`satellites or ground network systems. Id.
`2. Overview of ARINC 624-1
`ARINC 624-1 is titled “Design Guidance for Onboard Maintenance
`System” and provides a discussion of an ACMS, which “monitors and
`records selected airplane data related to airplane maintenance, performance,
`troubleshooting, and trend monitoring,” thereby “allowing the user to plan
`timely maintenance actions.” The figure below from ARINC 624-1
`illustrates an onboard maintenance system:
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1014, 57. The On-board Maintenance System (“OMS”), shown in the
`figure from ARINC 624-1 above, discloses a Central Maintenance Computer
`(“CMC”) that collects fault and failure data aircraft systems. “Member
`systems fault detection and [Built-In Test Equipment] BITE will be the
`primary source of data used by the OMS for detection and isolation of
`internal LRU faults, internal system faults and external interface faults.” Id.
`at 6. ARINC 624-1 discloses that the failures reported to the CMC should
`include a “[f]ailed LRU, part number or serial number, or interface.” Id. at
`9.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner argues that claims 4, 5, 14, and 16 would have been obvious
`in view of Ward and ARINC 624-1. Pet. 26–38. In support of these
`asserted grounds of unpatentability, Petitioner provides its arguments and
`proffers a Declaration of Dr. Helfrick to support its contentions. Pet. 26–38;
`Ex. 1002.
`
`a. Claim 4
`Claim 4 recites a “transmitter configured for transmission of digital
`aircraft performance data across a communication network while said
`aircraft is in flight.” With respect to this limitation in claim 4, Petitioner
`argues that Ward discloses an ECM system including an aircraft with an
`onboard ACMS, which collects data from “engine mounted units” and
`“other engine/flight/aircraft data” and transmits it to the ground via a data
`link, such as an ACARS system. Pet. 26–27 (quoting Ex. 1015, 7). Claim 4
`also recites “a central station connected to said communication network
`configured to receive and analyze said digital aircraft performance data.”
`With respect to this limitation in claim 4, Petitioner argues that Ward
`discloses that ACMS reports are provided to “ground based software” that
`performs a “performance analysis” and outputs “trends” and “alert
`messages” so that the airline can take “corrective action.” Pet. 27 (citing
`Ex. 1015, 7). With respect to the claim 4 recitation of generating
`maintenance advice for the aircraft, Petitioner argues that Ward discloses a
`variety of maintenance advice is generated by the ground-based software by
`disclosing that an “expert system” uses condition monitoring data to
`automatically diagnose engine problems and direct the user to “maintenance
`manuals” that “complement the diagnosis.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1015, 11). In
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`fact, Ward discloses that its ECM system is capable of “giving recommended
`maintenance action” and Figure 12 discloses “Maintenance Engineering”
`including “Alert summaries (auto),” “engine trends,” and “module trends.”
`Ex. 1015, 11, Fig. 12 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner admits that Ward does not expressly discuss the
`“configuration label,” recited in claim 4. Pet. 27. Petitioner argues that
`ARINC 624-1 teaches the “configuration label” by disclosing a Central
`Maintenance Computer (“CMC”) that integrates ACMS function and
`teaches reporting failures on an aircraft to a CMC, including the “part
`number or serial number” of a failed Line-Replaceable Unit (“LRU”).
`Pet. 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1014 §§ 3.3.1.1, 3.2.2.2.7). Petitioner also argues
`that ARINC 624-1 discloses in-flight transmission of “airplane data related
`to airplane maintenance, performance, troubleshooting and trend
`monitoring” to the ground for maintenance purposes. Pet. 28 (citing
`Ex. 1014 §§ 2.2.4, 3.4.1 (“The OMS should be designed to provide the
`capability to transmit data to the ground for advance initiation and
`preparation for maintenance actions. . . .”)). Petitioner argues that ARINC
`624-1 teaches a data link configured to transmit all of this fault information
`and associated configuration information, as well as ACMS reports, to the
`ground. Pet. 29 (Ex. 1014 § 2.2.4).
`Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to one of
`skill in the art to combine Ward and ARINC 624-1 in the manner set forth
`the Petition, as both references disclose using ACMS to collect aircraft
`performance data and the use of an ACARS system to transmit the data to a
`ground station. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75, 76 (Dr. Helfrick states that he
`believes “it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine Ward
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`and ARINC 624-1 because ARINC 624-1 is a standard directed to the very
`types of on-board systems discussed in Ward.”)). Additionally, Petitioner
`contends that ARINC publishes standards for the aviation industry,
`developed by committees that include aircraft manufacturers, avionics
`manufacturers, and airlines, and that the ACARS transmitter disclosed in
`Ward is based on, and, thus, would follow, an ARINC standard. Pet. 30
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23, 75). Also, Petitioner contends that both Ward and
`ARINC 624-1 discuss utilizing (1) onboard maintenance systems including
`ACMS to collect aircraft performance data and (2) an ACARS transmitter to
`transmit such data to a ground station. Pet. 30. Petitioner adds that ARINC
`624-1 provides an explicit motivation to utilize Ward’s ground based
`maintenance analysis software in implementing its maintenance system,
`because ARINC 624-1 states that “if known in advance of an airplane’s
`arrival at a terminal, selected information held in the OMS central
`maintenance computer’s memory could be useful to line maintenance
`personnel in planning timely corrective action.” Pet. 30–31 (quoting
`Ex. 1014 § 2.2.4). We agree, for the reasons stated by Petitioner, that, given
`the similarity and overlap in disclosures, and applicability of the ARINC
`standard to the ACARS transmitter of Ward, a person of skill in the art
`would have been motivated to improve the system in Ward with the
`teachings in ARINC 624-1.
`In view of the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has presented and
`sufficiently established an “articulated reasoning with some rational
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” with respect to
`claim 4 for this ground, and we adopt its contentions as our own. KSR, 550
`U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge based on Ward and
`ARINC 624-1 is deficient because Petitioner fails to identify a transmitter in
`either reference that is “p
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
