Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boeing Granted Patent On Mobile Wireless Lan

Posted by Hemos on from the yay dept.

xoip writes "Boeing Corporation has been granted Patent number 6,990,338 Mobile Wireless Local Area Network and Related Methods. The Luddite Lounge questions the wisdom of granting a patent that leverages existing technology and grants protection based on the application of this technology."

41 comments

  1. Actually this might not be so bad by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The RF characteristics of this wireless network are specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews.

    A decent federal judge would look at that and say that the patent only applies to aircraft networks, since the gist of it seems to be that this technique is only really applicable to aircraft systems. I can't imagine a single reason why you'd need something special for a train or bus considering you don't have to turn off mobile, networked devices on either of those modes of transportation.

    Yes, it's stupid, but at least this doesn't seem to be a blatant as "we patent the idea of putting a server on something with wings, wheels or a rudder."

    1. Re:Actually this might not be so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The RF characteristics of this wireless network are specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews."

      Then they go on to suggest that such a network operate in the 2.4Ghz range.

      Even a bit later they suggest that it follow a current standard for interoperation (802.11b).

      Their later calculations show that at standard levels, 802.11b does not currently interfere with equipment currently in use on planes.

      Basically, this is just a patent of standard WiFi on a moving object, despite their claim that it is "optimized for airplanes."

      I'd think the patent office would have noticed that -- but then again, I must assume too much.

    2. Re:Actually this might not be so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the patent..."Configuring a WLAN for use in aircraft entails consideration of a variety of factors, including those related, for example, to aircraft and passenger safety. Not all of such factors, however, are unique to aircraft. Thus many of the considerations for configuring an aircraft WLAN also pertain to configuring a WLAN for use in other types of mobile platforms
      So where will this stop?

    3. Re:Actually this might not be so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boeing did not go out and buy a WAP from Linksys and toss it in the plane with some servers and a satellite up-link. The AP hardware was specifically built for Boeing to meet the regulations laid out by the FCC and FAA. Dean, Jim, Gordon, and other engineers put years of development work into making this system work as required. I am happy to see this patent finally get approved.

    4. Re:Actually this might not be so bad by rnpg1014 · · Score: 1

      With a patent on wireless networks in moving vehicles in general, they can screw over other companies. The patent system is utterly useless if people are going to start patenting all of this...

      Maybe I should apply for a patent on leaves and start sueing plant owners. It's just as logical as recent patents...

      --
      - Nick
    5. Re:Actually this might not be so bad by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      This is just half of the equation, isn't it? The other half is connecting the server to the internet. At 1000 km/hr and 9 km up. Without increasing the RF exposure to passengers who are already in an elevated radiation environment.

      Or does the patent only describe the prior art?

    6. Re:Actually this might not be so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limiting RF exposure !! Too right !!

      Have you tried turning on a radio recently? The entire planet is bathed in RF 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Why doesn't the government do something about this - I'll tell you why - because it's a secret CIA mind control plot in collusion with the lizard people.

      I suggest that you build yourself a faraday cage by papering your mother's basement with tinfoil, for extra protection from RF exposure try making yourself a tinfoil beanie.

      If you hear the voices telling you to kill all the idiots who believe RF exposure is harmful, you know it's the lizard people trying to cover up. Try to resist the voices . . . like I do . . . and don't trust the doctors, the pills they give you are also mind control agents, they'll threaten to lock you up again if you stop taking their "medicine" - but you must not trust them, all doctors are really lizard people in human shaped masks.

    7. Re:Actually this might not be so bad by Captain+Zep · · Score: 1
      The patent says 'specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews'.

      It doesn't say it has to be on a plane - only that it has been designed such that it would be acceptable to put on a plane. So to avoid infringing the patent you need to make sure that your system would not meet applicable EMC standards...

      And as for it applying to moving platforms - since when is the Earth not a moving platform?

  2. The real question is ... by terrymr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who has a patent on installing wireless networks in non-moving objects ... like buildings and such?

    1. Re:The real question is ... by nbert · · Score: 1
      See patent #6,990,339 for non-moving platforms ;) But seriously, haven't they heard of prior art or is there something revolutionary in the abstract I'm missing? Especially this sentence surprises me:

      The RF characteristics of this wireless network are specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews.


      Is there any device being used in airplanes (not taking gadgets of passengers in account), which isn't designed not to interfere with other components? Maybe this sounds perfectly reasonable for someone being used to filing patents for big companies, but to me it sounds rather redundant.
      --
      I don't read replies by ACs.
  3. Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mobile wireless local area network and related methods

    Abstract

    A wireless local area network adapted for use by users traveling on a mobile platform such as an aircraft. The network includes a network server located on the mobile platform, and at least one network access point connected to the server and accessible wirelessly by at least one user portable electronic device over one of a plurality of non-overlapping network frequency channels. The RF characteristics of this wireless network are specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews.

    Claims

    What is claimed is:

    1. A wireless local area network adapted for use by users traveling on a mobile platform, the network comprising:

    a network server located on the mobile platform; and

    a plurality of network access points each independently associated with a specified cell area on the mobile platform, each being connected to the server, each network access point being accessible wirelessly by a predetermined number of user portable electronic devices per network access point, over one of a plurality of wireless channels having non-overlapping frequencies; and

    wherein each of the network access points is configured to wirelessly communicate with said portable electronic devices within an associated one of a plurality of cell areas on the mobile platform, and is further configured to communicate with said portable electronic devices that are roaming into a second one of said cell areas on the mobile platform from a first one of said cell areas on the mobile platform.

    2. The wireless local area network of claim 1, wherein the network access points are spaced apart within an interior area of the platform.

    3. The wireless local area network of claim 1, wherein at least one of the access points is configured so that a line replaceable unit of an aircraft system and an antenna of the access point are separated by a distance at which a field strength of the antenna is less than interference thresholds of the line replaceable unit.

    4. The wireless local area network of claim 1, wherein each of the network access points comprises an antenna mounted in an overhead area of the mobile platform.

    5. The wireless local area network of claim 1, wherein each of the network access points is configured to provide a wireless link only to portable electronics devices predetermined to meet predetermined standards for at least one of interference, health and safety.

    6. The wireless local area network of claim 5, wherein each of the network access points is further configured to ignore any portable electronic devices not predetermined to meet the predetermined standards.

    7. The wireless local area network of claim 1, wherein each of the network access points is configured to transmit and receive signals using a spread-spectrum modulation method.

    8. The wireless local area network of claim 7, wherein each of the network access points is configured to transmit and receive signals using direct sequence spread spectrum transmission.

    9. The wireless local area network of claim 8, wherein at least one of the channels is assigned to more than one of the access points.

    10. The wireless local area network of claim 1, wherein each of the access points comprises an antenna configured to communicate over a channel not being used by an adjacent access point antenna.

    11. The wireless local area network of claim 1, wherein each of the access points transmits at a radiated power between 1 and 5 milliwatts.

    12. The wireless local area network of claim 1, wherein each of the access points communicates with the portable electronic devices at frequencies at and above about 2.40 GHz.

  4. Prior Art by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back in 1997, several companies that know did wifi for car travel. Basically, it was being funded by some saudi prince so that the cars would remain in communication. Likewise, a company that worked with in 1998 approached Denver RTD to do wifi on buses. Showed them it, but did not land the contract due to the costs of putting wifi on the light poles. But both of these were prior art.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  5. Rats! by Scoth · · Score: 1

    I stuck an old wireless router in my car hooked up to an inverter and an old laptop and used it both for updating mp3s and a few vids from home and accessing my music from work/remotely on my main laptop and other stuff. Should have patented it! I'd be rich! :)

  6. the Dr. Seuss answer by nekoniku · · Score: 5, Funny

    You patent wifi on a plane?
    I'll patent wifi on a train!
    I'll patent wifi in a box.
    I'll patent wifi with a fox!
    Plane, train, box, fox!
    Can I patent wifi socks?

    --
    "It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
  7. Prior Art! by Plocmstart · · Score: 1

    I claim prior art by previously creating a "mobile" network of wi-fi users. My buddies and I were on a road trip while one of us dialed up via a cellphone and shared the connection via wifi with everyone else in the car that had a laptop (minus the drive of course). While not documented anywhere, I'm sure there are quite a few claims out there of prior art to shoot it down.

    1. Re:Prior Art! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not prior art if it's not publicly documented.

    2. Re:Prior Art! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess. You and your buddies are all virgins?

  8. interesting... by blackcoot · · Score: 1

    ... i imagine the dod may have a thing or two to say about this, since wireless networks are a perennial favorite sbir / sttr topic. in fact, i could see some really nasty fallout for boeing from this if they use their patent to stifle small business innovation in the areas that the dod cares about.

    1. Re:interesting... by billethius · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the DOD is a major customer of Boeing. It's possible this could also help their business.

    2. Re:interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DoD, like all the other government agencies, couldn't care less about such measly inconveniences as "patents". Sad, but true :(

  9. Then it shouldn't be so bad by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    If that be the case, then there should be nothing enforcable here because 802.11b is an open technology that Boeing has no control over. Now, if they'd come up with a way to make 802.11g or some other much faster wireless work since those can disrupt... that'd be a bit different.

    If 802.11b doesn't screw with electronics, they've got no case in court.

    1. Re:Then it shouldn't be so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If boeing sues you, what are you going to do? You know you are right, but they can ruin you five times over. The fact that such a patent was granted is a big problem just because of this.

      Actually they don't even have to sue you. They just have to threaten you with it.

      The question really is, why are you defending this? Why are you writing here that there is no problem?

  10. Um..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Luddite Lounge questions the wisdom of granting a patent that leverages existing technology and grants protection based on the application of this technology."

    What patent in the world doesn't leverage existing technology and protect it's application?

  11. obviousness? by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 1

    i'm currently reading up on patents and one of the many reasons for a patent to be rejected is "obviousness" or the combination of multiple ideas to form another idea where a logical person could deduce a result of said existing technologies.

    someone with more experience should help articulate/clarify my commant, but i hope it gets the idea across.

    1. Re:obviousness? by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      where a logical person could deduce a result of said existing technologies

      In the U.S., the standard used is a "practitioner having ordinary skill in the art", (US Code Title 35, Section 103) not a "logical person".

      To counter the other usual nonsense propagated by Slashdot headlines, claims may be dependent, in that some claims state what is conventional or known, and then a later claim describes a (novel and non-obvious) extension or improvement that constitues the grounds for novelty and non-obviousness. The common technique in Slashdot articles is to mention only the general claim, such as Claim 1 in this case, and crying "how obvious! That's been around since the stone age!" without mentioning the dependent claims 6, or 9, where the non-obvious part is stated.

    2. Re:obviousness? by psxndc · · Score: 1
      Wrong. Claims stand and fall on their own. An independent claim must be novel and non-obvious. A dependent claim, dependent on that independent claim, must also be nonvel and non-obvious. Patent claims are analyzed individually for invalidity and the limitations of dependent claims are not read into the parent independent claim.

      Many rejections from an examiner will reject the independent claim and will object to the dependent claim, stating that the dependent claim, which is narrower than the indepent claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.

      What people on slashdot should look at is the image file wrapper (put in the patent number, select patent number from the drop down, and select the image file wrapper tab). These are the arguments are exchanged between the Examiner and the applicant in trying to get the patent allowed. This is the ultimate authority on what the applicant says is his invention because he may be estopped during litigation from claiming his invention is something he said it wasn't during prosecution.

      -p-

      --

      The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

    3. Re:obviousness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digging a little Deeper...Claim23/23 states:23. A wireless local area network adapted for use by users traveling on a mobile platform, wherein the mobile platform has a plurality of rows of seats, the network comprising: a network server located on the mobile platform; a plurality of network access components each forming a network access point, and each being independently associated with a different, predetermined seating row on the mobile platform, and each being in communication with the network server; each network access component being accessible wirelessly by at least one portable electronic device located in its associated said seating row; each of said network access components including an antenna; each of the network access components further being configured to wirelessly communicate via its associated said antenna with said portable electronic devices within an associated one of said seating rows on the mobile platform while enabling roaming of a given one of said electronic devices between said different ones of said network access components; and a communication system for wirelessly communicating information between said network server on said mobile platform and a subsystem disposed remotely from said mobile platform, said communication system including a receive antenna and a transmit antenna.
      Perhaps the diagram of the "invention" illustrates that a"practitioner having ordinary skill in the art" could have come to the same conclusion.

    4. Re:obviousness? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely nothing non-obvious or novel involved in neither claim 6 nor claim 9 in this patent, or any of the other claims for that matter. The stated claims in this patent are standard practice for terrestrial wireless lan deployment, just applied to a mobile platform, which for all intents and purposes is a fixed deployment because the network and the users move congruently. So, relativistically speaking, this is not a mobile network because the users move with it and are stationary relative to the network.

      This patent was granted in error, as have been thousands of others.

    5. Re:obviousness? by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN · · Score: 1

      I suppose you are right. I was confusing the Jepson claim style with the more usual kind of claim.

  12. already exists for trains by guysmilee · · Score: 0

    already exists for trains, vans, etc ... aramiska has been doing this for nearly 4 years ... http://www.aramiska.net/main.php?cm_navpos=1744,17 49,1759&cm_ncid=5821&PHPSESSID=b36414bdcf23f7a8f24 8ed62a1acbdba&cm_t=1138656515&page=detail&item=201 1

    1. Re:already exists for trains by xoip · · Score: 1

      What about Point Shot? They have systems on trains and buses.

  13. Retaliation by jd · · Score: 2, Funny
    I am LAN. LAN I am. Do you ping GREEN QoS and spam?


    That wireless LAN! That wireless LAN! I do not like that wireless LAN!


    Would you, could you, ping a plane? Would you, could you, ping a train?


    I will! I will! I will patent them on a plane, I will patent them on a train. I will patent LANs here and there, I will patent wireless everywhere!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  14. Hmmm. Interesting question. by jd · · Score: 1
    If you had an earthquake in California, would all of the roofnets there violate the patent? They are, after all, moving.


    Since the Earth is, itself, a moving vehicle (albeit travelling through space), all buildings on it are moving along with it. That reduces to the same situation as a wireless LAN inside an aircraft, where all components are stationary relative to each other, but moving relative to an outside body.


    Actually, it's worse than that, as most buildings are built over continental plates which are also moving.


    (As for prior art, there are plenty of designs for mobile networks and you can find the software specifications on the IETF's website.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  15. Stay calm ... by ja · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... and let the world do the move.

    --

    send + more == money? ...
  16. The world is already in motion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earth already is in motion. So every object on is is moving........
    Bull SHIT!!!

  17. Prior art? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I have one in my car.... does that count?

  18. Shoot it down?! by pv2b · · Score: 1

    You want to shoot planes down? Using prior art?! That's clearly terrorist talk!

    I must contact the glorious President Bush of the United States of America at once to make the use of prior art illegal to protect the children from those patent terrorists.

  19. Wardriving by gedeco · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This patent will have a negative effect on the hackers art of wardriving.

  20. Bad Link by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

    The patent is here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,990,338.WKU.&OS=PN/6,990,338&RS =PN/6,990,338