UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`THE BOEING COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SEYMOUR LEVINE
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR [Unassigned]
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 311
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Statement of Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)) ........ 1
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................... 1
`
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................. 1
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............................ 2
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ....................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................................................... 2
`
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`A. Overview of the ’618 patent and the claims for review ........................ 3
`
`B.
`
`State of the art prior to the December 1996 filing date ......................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Flight data recorders and regulatory context .............................. 5
`
`AIDS/ACMS systems ................................................................. 5
`
`Central maintenance computers .................................................. 6
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “digital aircraft
`performance data” is digital information about aircraft
`operation, identity, or configuration ...................................................... 7
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “performance and
`control parameters” is variable aircraft operational
`measurements that make up the “digital aircraft performance
`data” ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “maintenance advice”
`is problem-specific maintenance information, such as trends,
`alerts, or isolation of faults .................................................................. 10
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`D.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “configuration label”
`is an indicator identifying or describing equipment onboard an
`aircraft .................................................................................................. 12
`
`VI. Limitations Lacking Patentable Weight ........................................................ 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Limitations concerning transmission of non-functional
`information lack patentable weight ..................................................... 16
`
`Numerous limitations are intended uses of prior art systems that
`are inherently disclosed ....................................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Limitations identifying categories of data ................................ 20
`
`Generating maintenance advice “while said aircraft is in
`flight” ........................................................................................ 21
`
`A storage system “for archiving” .............................................. 22
`
`VII. Each of the References Cited Is Available Prior Art ..................................... 22
`
`VIII. Identification of the Challenge ...................................................................... 24
`
`A. Ground 1: Ward renders claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16
`obvious in view of ARINC 624-1 and Monroe ................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of claims 4, 5, 14, and 16 over Ward in
`view of ARINC 624-1 ............................................................... 26
`
`Obviousness of claims 8, 9, and 10 in further view of
`Monroe ...................................................................................... 31
`
`Location of each claim limitation ............................................. 32
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Dyson renders claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16
`obvious in view of Chetail and Monroe .............................................. 38
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of claims 4, 5, 14, and 16 over Dyson in
`view of Chetail .......................................................................... 39
`
`Obviousness of claims 8, 9, and 10 in further view of
`Monroe ...................................................................................... 41
`
`Location of each claim limitation ............................................. 41
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Dowling renders claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16
`obvious in view of ARINC 624-1 and Monroe ................................... 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness of claims 4, 5, 14, and 16 over Dowling and
`ARINC 624-1 ............................................................................ 47
`
`Obviousness of claims 8, 9, and 10 in further view of
`Monroe ...................................................................................... 49
`
`Location of each claim limitation ............................................. 49
`
`D. Ground 4: Ward renders claims 8, 9, and 10 obvious in view of
`ARINC 624-1, ARINC 702-6, and FAA, Increased FDR
`Parameters .......................................................................................... 55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 8: aircraft performance data includes position data
`directed to flight data recorder .................................................. 56
`
`Claim 9: GPS used in calculation of position ........................... 57
`
`Claim 10: inertial navigation used in calculation of
`position ...................................................................................... 57
`
`4. Motivation to combine .............................................................. 57
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Ward renders claims 8, 9, and 10 obvious in view of
`ARINC 624-1, FAA, Increased FDR Parameters, and Farmakis ...... 58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 8: aircraft performance data includes position data
`directed to flight data recorder .................................................. 59
`
`Claim 9: GPS used in calculation of position ........................... 59
`
`Claim 10: inertial navigation used in calculation of
`position ...................................................................................... 59
`
`4. Motivation to combine .............................................................. 59
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 62
`
`APPENDIX A Exhibit List ..................................................................................... 63
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ex parte Nehls,
`88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1883, 2008 WL 258370 (BPAI 2008) .................................. 18, 19
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1996) ................................................................................................ 27
`
`In re Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 20
`
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 21, 22, 23
`
`King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 19
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 27
`
`Levine v. The Boeing Company,
`No. 14-cv-1991 (W.D. Wash.) .............................................................................. 1
`
`Levine v. The Boeing Company,
`No. 14-cv-6859 (C.D. Cal.) .................................................................................. 1
`
`Ormco Co. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 62, 64
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 23, 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................. 25, 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 5, 26, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) ................................................................................................... 64
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................ 2, 64
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 26
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................. 64
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(1) .............................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .............................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Statement of Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a))
`
`The Boeing Company (“Boeing”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100, petitions for institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE39,618 to Seymour Levine (the “’618 patent”) and seeks cancellation of the
`
`’618 patent’s claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16. Levine is asserting the ’618 patent
`
`against Boeing in concurrent litigation. This petition demonstrates that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Boeing will prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`challenged claims, which are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`This petition is identical to the petition in pending IPR2015-01341, except
`
`(a) paragraphs 107-111 of Exhibit 1002 (Helfrick Decl.), exhibits referenced
`
`therein, and citations thereto, and (b) further evidence that Exhibit 1013 is a printed
`
`publication. This material was added in an abundance of caution to address
`
`purported deficiencies raised in the PO Preliminary Response in IPR2015-01341.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`The real party-in-interest is The Boeing Company.
`
`B. Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Boeing provides notice of the following related proceedings: (1) Levine v.
`
`The Boeing Company, No. 14-cv-1991 (W.D. Wash.), served Oct. 8, 2014; (2)
`
`Levine v. The Boeing Company, No. 14-cv-6859 (C.D. Cal.), served Sept. 3, 2014,
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`which was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; and (3) The Boeing Company
`
`v. Levine, IPR2015-01341, challenging the ’618 patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Boeing designates the following lead and backup counsel. A Power of
`
`Attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) is filed herewith.
`
`Backup Counsel
`Chun M. Ng (Reg. No. 36,878)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`206.359.6488 (telephone)
`206.359.7488 (facsimile)
`cng@perkinscoie.com
`
`Lead Counsel
`Ryan J. McBrayer (Reg. No. 54,299)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`206.359.3073 (telephone)
`206.359.4073 (facsimile)
`rmcbrayer@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`D.
`Please direct all correspondence to lead and backup counsel at the above
`
`addresses. Boeing consents to e-mail service at: rmcbrayer@perkinscoie.com,
`
`cng@perkinscoie.com, and patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com.
`
`III. Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’618 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review challenging claims of the ’618 patent on the
`
`grounds identified herein. Specifically, Petitioner has standing, or meets all
`
`requirements, to file this Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)(1), 315(b), 315(e)(1)
`
`and 325(e)(1), as well as 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(d)(1), 42.101, and 42.102. Boeing
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`was served with the complaint in the concurrent patent infringement litigation less
`
`than one year ago, on October 8, 2014 (Exs. 1005-1006). (On September 3, 2014,
`
`Levine served Boeing with an earlier infringement complaint, but he voluntarily
`
`dismissed that case without prejudice, Exs. 1007-1009.) Thus, this petition is
`
`timely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). See IPR2012-00004, Paper 18, at 14-16.
`
`IV. Background
`A. Overview of the ’618 patent and the claims for review
`The ’618 patent states that it is directed to the field of flight data recorders,
`
`and more particularly, to the collection of aircraft performance data during flight
`
`and the transmission of that data to a ground station for purposes of generating
`
`maintenance advisories. Ex. 1001, 1:12-19.
`
`As the background to the ’618 patent acknowledges, onboard data
`
`collection, such as the information recorded in the flight data recorder commonly
`
`referred to as a “black box,” has long been a feature of commercial aircraft. The
`
`specification, however, asserts that the prior art did not contemplate “real-time
`
`radio transmission of aircraft data to a central station” on the ground. Id., 2:15-18.
`
`The background further asserts that the prior art did not contemplate using this
`
`downlinked data to provide “advisories,” including “maintenance actions.” Id.,
`
`2:18-22, 2:37-38. Claim 4 thus claims an “aircraft maintenance system” with two
`
`components: (1) a “transmitter” that transmits “performance data” to the ground
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`while the aircraft is in flight, and (2) a “central station,” which is configured to
`
`receive the “performance data” and use it to “generate maintenance advice” for the
`
`aircraft. Dependent claim 5 and independent claim 14 further require a “sensor
`
`multiplexer” to receive and output the performance data.
`
`The “performance data” of claim 4 must include (a) “an identifier unique to
`
`a particular aircraft” and “a configuration label,” and (b) at least some data that is
`
`also “directed to the flight data recorder.” Dependent claims 8-10 further limit the
`
`“aircraft performance data” of claim 4 to include position data, including GPS data
`
`and data from an inertial navigation system.
`
`Independent claim 14 is substantially similar to dependent claim 5. It claims
`
`an “aircraft maintenance system” with (1) “transmitter,” (2) “ground based
`
`station,” and (3) “sensor multiplexer” components, which are substantially similar
`
`to the (1) “transmitter,” (2) “central station,” and (3) “sensor multiplexer”
`
`components of claim 5. Finally, dependent claim 16 limits claim 14 by further
`
`requiring that the “ground based station” includes a storage system for archiving.
`
`As reflected in this petition, contrary to the statements in the specification,
`
`the claimed aircraft maintenance system is simply an obvious application of prior
`
`art aircraft maintenance technology. Each fundamental feature of the invention—
`
`onboard collection of various types of aircraft performance data, transmission of
`
`such data to the ground during flight, and generation of maintenance advice from
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`the transmitted data—pre-dates Levine’s invention. A skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to combine the available features of the prior art in the manner of
`
`the claims; indeed, much of the relevant technology had already been incorporated
`
`into industry standards for aircraft maintenance systems by the time of Levine’s
`
`claimed invention, meaning that all that was required to carry out the invention
`
`was to implement such industry standards through existing aircraft data recording
`
`and transmission equipment. Petitioner Boeing thus has identified herein five
`
`separate grounds establishing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`B.
`
`State of the art prior to the December 1996 filing date
`1.
`Flight data recorders date back to at least the 1950s. See Ex. 1010, 9622.
`
`Flight data recorders and regulatory context
`
`Long before the alleged invention, sending data to a flight data recorder was
`
`required by law for many commercial aircraft. Ex. 1010, 9636-37 (amending FAA
`
`regulations to mandate that certain “large aircraft” manufactured after 1989 contain
`
`flight data recorders to record 17 specified parameters). Further, over a year prior
`
`to Levine’s patent application, the FAA proposed expanding the list of mandatory
`
`data collected by the flight data recorder to include dozens of further items,
`
`including position data and GPS data when available. Ex. 1011.
`
`AIDS/ACMS systems
`
`2.
`It was also well-known in the prior art to record aircraft parameters during
`
`flight and transmit them to the ground for maintenance purposes. In the 1970s,
`
`5
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`“aircraft integrated data systems” or “AIDS” provided “on-condition 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 air-to-ground communication technology used to
`
`transmit this data in 1979 was the ARINC Communications Addressing and
`
`Reporting System (ACARS). Id. This is the same technology that Levine accuses,
`
`36 years later, of meeting the “transmitter” element of his claims. Ex. 1012, 1.
`
`By the early 1990s, the “AIDS” acronym was replaced by “ACMS,” which
`
`stands for “aircraft condition monitoring system.” Ex. 1014, § 1.1.
`
`Central maintenance computers
`
`3.
`Also in the prior art, as reflected in the relevant industry standard, a “central
`
`maintenance computer” or “CMC” onboard the aircraft was used to collect and
`
`process ACMS (formerly AIDS) data. Ex. 1014, §§ 1.1, 8.1. The CMC could also
`
`collect and process, among other things, “[h]ardware and software configuration
`
`identification data,” including “hardware and software part numbers or combined
`
`part number, serial number, modification status, and programmable options in
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`effect (e.g., pin programmable options).” Id., § 3.2.2.2.7. The CMC was configured
`
`to transmit all of these data to the ground over a data link, such as ACARS. Id.,
`
`§§ 3.4.1, 8.2.6. Levine alleges that Boeing’s Central Maintenance Computer
`
`embodies the “sensor multiplexer” of the ’618 patent’s claims. Ex. 1012, 10.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`The terms needing construction are addressed below. These constructions
`
`reflect the broadest reasonable interpretation. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). While
`
`Boeing presently believes these are all the terms requiring construction, Boeing
`
`reserves the right to request that additional terms be construed, for example, in
`
`response to arguments by Levine. Boeing also reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions under different standards applicable in other forums.
`
`A. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “digital aircraft
`performance data” is digital information about aircraft operation,
`identity, or configuration
`
`The phrase “digital aircraft performance data” appears only in the claims,
`
`and not in the specification. The plain meaning of the phrase refers to digital data
`
`about “aircraft performance.” Other claim language confirms the broad scope of
`
`the phrase. Claim 4 specifies that “digital aircraft performance data” includes an
`
`“identifier unique to a particular aircraft and a configuration label,” as well as data
`
`directed to a flight data recorder. Dependent claims 6-10 provide that digital
`
`aircraft performance data may also include audio, video, and position information.
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`Claim 5 specifies a “sensor multiplexer” with an “output” for providing the
`
`“digital aircraft performance data” to the transmitter, and “inputs” for “receiving
`
`aircraft performance and control parameters from existing aircraft sensors.” This
`
`claim language suggests that the digital aircraft performance data output includes
`
`the “performance and control parameter” inputs measured by the sensors.
`
`A broad interpretation of “performance” data is also supported by the
`
`specification. The Summary of the Invention states that the functions of the
`
`“present invention” are achieved by continuously monitoring “sensors such as
`
`[those measuring] aircraft position, altitude, speed, control surface settings, engine
`
`revolutions per minute, temperatures, stress, and fuel,” along with cockpit audio,
`
`video, aircraft identification and configuration, and by transmitting those
`
`parameters to a ground-based station. Ex. 1001, 2:59-67. The next sentence states
`
`that this “aircraft performance and cockpit communication data” can be stored in a
`
`ground-based recorder for after-crash analysis. Id., 3:1-6.1 Accordingly, the
`
`specification uses “aircraft performance” to encompass a variety of parameters
`
`(other than cockpit communications), including position, altitude, speed, and so
`
`forth. Consistent with this broad meaning, the specification elsewhere states that
`
`“sensor signals 18 depicting the performance of many of the flight safety critical
`
`
`1 Throughout, emphasis has been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`assemblies” are “the same as those that are presently sent to the existing flight
`
`crash recorders aboard aircraft . . . such as air speed, height, attitude, landing gear
`
`status, fuel status as well as the position of the aircraft controls and latitude and
`
`longitude.” Id., 8:1-11.
`
`In light of this evidence from the claims and the specification, the Board
`
`should construe “digital aircraft performance data” to mean “digital information
`
`about the aircraft operation, identity, or configuration.” Consistent with the
`
`specification and claims, this construction would encompass, among other things,
`
`position, altitude, attitude, air speed, temperature, stress, fuel or engine status,
`
`control settings, latitude and longitude, aircraft identification and configuration,
`
`and digitized audio and video data.
`
`B.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “performance and
`control parameters” is variable aircraft operational
`measurements that make up the “digital aircraft performance
`data”
`
`Claims 5 and 14 include the phrase “performance and control parameters.”
`
`This phrase should be construed to refer to those aspects of “digital aircraft
`
`performance data” comprising variable operational measurements.
`
`As noted, claim 5 refers to “performance and control parameters” being
`
`input to the multiplexer from “existing aircraft sensors” and output as “digital
`
`aircraft performance data.” This indicates that the performance and control
`
`parameters are those measures of aircraft operations that change during flight and
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`which are monitored by aircraft sensors. Other non-variable components of “digital
`
`aircraft performance data,” such as aircraft identification and the configuration
`
`label, would not be part of the “performance and control parameters.”
`
`C. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “maintenance advice”
`is problem-specific maintenance information, such as trends,
`alerts, or isolation of faults
`
`At a general level, the specification refers to combining data from the
`
`aircraft, such as performance parameters (e.g., airspeed, engine RPM), with data
`
`from other sources (e.g., weather, map data) to generate “six types of advisories,”
`
`including maintenance advisories. Ex. 1001, Abs. The specification refers to an
`
`“advisory module 70 for generating” these “advisories,” but provides no algorithm
`
`or explanation of how the “advisory module” generates “advisories.” See id. 5:53.
`
`The specification is of limited use in interpreting the claimed “maintenance
`
`advice” because it does not describe the claimed function of a central station
`
`generating maintenance advisories from data transmitted in flight. Rather, the
`
`specification consistently describes maintenance advisories as being generated (1)
`
`by a manufacturer’s “expert system,” not by the central station, id., 6:64-67 (“an
`
`aircraft manufacturer . . . sends advisories over the network to the aircraft’s ground
`
`maintenance personnel”); id., 7:57-63 (“manufacturer’s facility 108 transmits
`
`expert system repair advisories to the aircraft’s 10 maintenance personnel”); id.,
`
`fig. 4 (showing “maintenance advisories” being generated at “aircraft manufacturer
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`facility”), (2) based on data received from an aircraft while it is on the ground, not
`
`while it is in flight. See id., 3:32-39 (“[I]f an aircraft exhibits a mechanical
`
`equipment failure prior to take off, the aircraft’s sensor monitoring data are also
`
`communicated back to the aircraft manufacturer in real-time. The aircraft
`
`manufacturer then provides the mechanics with a preferred maintenance advisory
`
`. . . .”). There is no further description of the manufacturer’s “expert system” or
`
`how it operates to generate maintenance advisories.
`
`Despite the paucity of disclosure of the claimed system, the “advice” of the
`
`claims presumably is intended to be synonymous with the “advisories” of the
`
`specification, since the specification uses the term “advisories,” but not “advice.”
`
`According to the specification, the manufacturer’s maintenance advisories for
`
`“aircraft experiencing problems on the ground” represent “the latest diagnostic
`
`procedures and problem specific maintenance information.” Id., 7:1-2. A skilled
`
`artisan would recognize that such advisories could include trend and exceedance
`
`information, which would allow maintenance personnel to determine if some
`
`particular parameter was out of its normal or expected bounds, indicating a
`
`malfunction. Ex. 1002 (Helfrick Decl.), ¶ 63. Such “advisories” could also include
`
`an alert identifying a particular problem. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 5:61-62 (“the real-
`
`time analysis of the data will alert the operational aircraft 10 of problems”).
`
`Finally, problem specific maintenance information could consist of fault isolation
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`or other diagnostic information. Helfrick Decl., ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1001, 3:37-38
`
`(manufacturer provides maintenance advisories based on “expert system for fault
`
`isolation”). Accordingly, to the extent this term can be understood, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “maintenance advice” is “problem-specific
`
`maintenance information, such as trends, alerts, or isolation of faults.”
`
`D. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “configuration label” is
`an indicator identifying or describing equipment onboard an
`aircraft
`
`All claims at issue here include the term “configuration label.” The term
`
`“configuration label” appears only once in the specification, in a passage referring
`
`to the on-board “Sensor Multiplexer Receiver & Transmitter” or “SMART”
`
`converting sensor signals into digital format, and “add[ing] a sensor identification
`
`label to each signal 18, 22, 26, 44 plus an aircraft identification and configuration
`
`label.” Ex. 1001, 5:5. However, neither this passage nor any other passage
`
`describes the contents or purpose of the “configuration label.”
`
`The specification does refer to the use of “configuration data,” but does so
`
`only in connection with generating a “safety advisory” and a “safe to take off
`
`advisory,” not in connection with a maintenance advisory. Id., 3:12-15; 3:25-31.2
`
`
`2 This sentence about using aircraft configuration for generating a “safe to take off
`
`advisory” is repeated verbatim later in the specification, but without the words
`
`
`
`03007-0014/92033634.1
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618
`
`The specification distinguishes maintenance advisories from these other types of
`
`advisories. Id., Abs., 2:34-38. (“There are three types of in-flight advisories:
`
`emergency or safety of flight, flight efficiency or fuel economy, and flight
`
`separation. On the ground there are also three types of advisories: safe to fly, safe
`
`to take off and maintenance actions.”). Thus, the specification does not teach use
`
`of a “configuration label” in connection with generating “maintenance advice.”
`
`During prosecution of the reissue application, the examiner found that a
`
`“configuration label” was implicitly disclosed in the prior art, stating that
`
`“transmitted aircraft ID data” in the prior art implicitly includes a configuration
`
`label because “the aircraft configuration label can be direc