Ex Parte Ishihara et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2013

11368973 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YASUO ISHIHARA and STEVE C. JOHNSON
____________

Appeal 2010-006128
Application 11/368,973
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yasuo Ishihara and Steve C. Johnson (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 and
21-26, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-006128
Application 11/368,973

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a system for selectively
altering a ground proximity warning message for a flight vehicle. Spec.,
para. [0004]. Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A ground proximity warning system for a vehicle,
comprising:
a processor that is configured to generate a look-ahead
envelope that defines a region extending outwardly from the
vehicle and to generate a terrain proximity message when the
defined region intersects a terrain feature; and
an interface device coupled to the processor that is
arranged to receive at least one of a first selection and a second
selection from a crew member of the vehicle, arranged to cause
the processor to configure the system in a first operating mode
wherein the generated terrain proximity message is selectively
suppressed in response to the first selection, and arranged to
cause the processor to configure the system in a second
operating mode wherein the terrain proximity message is not
suppressed in response to the second selection.
Independent claim 6 is also directed to a ground proximity warning
system and comprises a look-ahead warning generator and “an interface
coupled to the generator, arranged to receive at least one of a first selection
and a second selection from a crew member of the aircraft” where the
generated terrain proximity message is selectively suppressed in response to
the first selection and is not suppressed in response to the second selection.
Appeal 2010-006128
Application 11/368,973

3
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Wood US 6,021,374 Feb. 1, 2000
DeMers US 6,346,892 B1 Feb. 12, 2002
Kelly US 6,567,728 B1 May 20, 2003
Johnson US 2002/0097169 A1 Jul. 25, 2002
Corwin US 2003/0004641 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Conner US 2004/0030465 A1 Feb. 12, 2004
Khatwa US 2004/0225440 A1 Nov. 11, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Johnson and Conner.
2. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Conner, and Wood.
3. Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Conner, and Khatwa.
4. Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Conner, and DeMers.
5. Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Conner, Wood, Kelly, and Corwin.
ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of independent
claims 1 and 6 over Johnson and Conner. App. Br. 4-10. Appellants do not
present separate arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, and 12, so
these claims stand or fall with their respective independent claims. See 37
Appeal 2010-006128
Application 11/368,973

4
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). While Appellants appeal the ground of
rejection of the remaining claims 4, 11, and 21-26 (App. Br. 3-4), Appellants
do not present arguments specifically rebutting these grounds of rejection.
We understand Appellants to be seeking reversal of these rejections based on
the arguments presented in rebuttal of the first ground of rejection of
independent claims 1 and 6. As such, the outcome of this appeal turns on
our analysis of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson and Conner.
We agree with the Examiner that Johnson discloses all the features of
the systems of claims 1 and 6, except for explicitly disclosing that a crew
member may cause the system to act in multiple modes. Ans. 3-4. We also
agree with the Examiner that Conner teaches a system that determines a
phase of flight based on input from a crew member (via gear or flaps) and
sends a signal to the processing system. Ans. 5-7. We also agree with the
Examiner that the modification of Johnson to incorporate or substitute a
crew interface device coupled to a processor as taught by Conner in
Johnson’s system is simply the combination of prior art elements according
to their established functions to yield predictable results or the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field to yield a
predictable result. Ans. 7. We further find that the Examiner has adequately
addressed Appellants’ arguments in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 8-12. As
such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as our own. In
particular, Appellants’ arguments that Conner fails to provide motivation to
modify Johnson (App. Br. 6) and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
Appeal 2010-006128
Application 11/368,973

5
not be motivated to modify Johnson’s system as proposed (App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 5) rely on a crew member’s intent to suppress the terrain
proximity message via the interface. These arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim language, which simply calls for
the interface device to be “arranged to receive” a selection from a crew
member and to be “arranged to cause the processor [or generator] to
configure the system” in a first or second operating mode based on the
selection made. See Ans. 11. As such, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 and
21-26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls