`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