Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2021

2020006572 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/477,889 04/03/2017 Daniel Robert Lewis 0021-00196-CIP 5891
130674 7590 03/30/2021
Lightfoot & Alford PLLC (BHTI)
25 Highland Park Village
Suite 100-376
Dallas, TX 75205
EXAMINER
ARTHUR JEANGLAUD, GERTRUDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
lightfootalfordpllc@gmail.com
patentdocket@lightfootalford.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL ROBERT LEWIS and
ALAN SOO LOVE

Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
TAWEN CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
lacking a written description and under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as indefinite.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Textron
Innovations Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 20–22 in the Final Office Action as
follows:
Claims 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the
written description requirement. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3.
Claims 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
inventor regards as the invention. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Claim 20, the only independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below:
20. A system for a rotorcraft, comprising:
a regime engine configured to utilize sequential time-
series numerical data to identify a top tier regime from a group
of top tier regimes and to subsequently identify a sub-regime of
the selected top tier regime; and
a results communication system configured to receive the
identified top tier regime or the identified sub-regime from the
regime engine and communicate the identified top tier regime
or identified sub-regime to a flight computer configured to alter
an operation of the rotorcraft as a function of the identified top
tier regime or identified sub-regime;
wherein when a portion of the sequential time-series
numerical data is recognized by the regime engine as matching
multiple top tier regimes, the regime engine is configured to
select a regime having a higher priority than the other matching
top tier regimes and is configured to associate the higher
priority regime with the portion of the sequential time-series
numerical data; and
wherein when the regime engine is identifying the sub-
regime, the regime engine considers only the portion of the
sequential time-series numerical data associated with the higher
priority regime.

Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

3
REJECTIONS
Claim 20 was amended on Oct. 30, 2019 by adding the limitation:
wherein when a portion of the sequential time-series
numerical data is recognized by the regime engine as matching
multiple top tier regimes, the regime engine is configured to
select a regime having a higher priority than the other matching
top tier regimes and is configured to associate the higher
priority regime with the portion of the sequential time-series
numerical data.
In response to the amendment, the Examiner rejected the claim as
lacking a written description as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because there
is no support in the Specification for the “the amended claimed language
limitation ‘wherein a portion of the sequential time-series numerical data
...... as matching multiple top tier regimes . . . the other matching top tier
regimes.” Ans. 4.
The Examiner also rejected the claim as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) because it “it is unclear how a portion of the sequential time-series
numerical data is defined and how it is matching multiple top tier
regimes.” Ans. 4.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We begin the analysis with reviewing what is necessary to comply
with the written description and indefiniteness requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
It is well-established that the inventor must “convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she
was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis omitted). “One shows that one is
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

4
‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its
claimed limitations . . . .” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565,
1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis omitted). In describing the claimed
invention, there is no requirement that the wording be identical to that used
in the specification as long as there is sufficient disclosure to show one of
skill in the art that the inventor “invented what is claimed.” Union Oil Co. v.
Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The written
description “need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba but [it] must
do more than merely disclose that which would render the claimed invention
obvious.” ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1377
(Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, as long as a person “of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood the inventor to have been in possession of the claimed
invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not
explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate written
description requirement is met.” In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), a patent must “conclude with one
or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” § 112(b) requires the
claims “to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—
terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The rationale
for requiring such “reasonable precision” in claim language is because “[i]t
is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the
patent, and what is not.” Id.
Having these principles in mind, we proceed to a discussion of the
rejections.
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

5
DISCUSSION
Claim 20 is directed to a system for a rotorcraft. A helicopter is an
example of a rotorcraft. Spec. ¶ 11. The rotorcraft system comprises a
“regime engine.” The Specification explains that a regime engine “identifies
flight regimes that the aircraft operated in.” Spec. ¶ 35. A “regime” is not
expressly defined in the Specification. However, we understand that
“regime” is a term used in the art to mean a maneuver or “phase of flight”
(Spec. ¶¶ 19, 44; Fig. 7) of the rotorcraft, such as takeoff, descent, or hover.
The regime engine is recited in claim 20 to be “configured to utilize
sequential time-series numerical data to identify a top tier regime from a
group of top tier regimes.” A “top tier regime,” as we understand the term, is
a regime that includes “sub-regimes.” Take-off, landing, and hover are
examples of top-tier regimes. Figure 3 of the Specification shows top-tier
regimes A and B which include sub-regimes A1, A2, etc., for A and B1, B2,
etc., for B. Figure 2 of the Specification shows a more specific example
where a top-tier regime might include A and E (right turn maneuver) and
another top-tier regime might include B, D, and F (control reversal). Spec.
¶¶ 13, 15. The claim also requires that a sub-regime is identified in a top-tier
regime (“to subsequently identify a sub-regime of the selected top tier
regime”).
The regime engine is required by the claim to use “sequential time-
series numerical data.” This phrase is not expressly defined in the
Specification. However, we understand it to include measurements of
specific “facets of aircraft performance (e.g., airspeed, density altitude, bank
angle, etc.)” made by measurement sensors. Spec. ¶¶ 14, 22, 32. These
measurements (the “numerical data”) are used to “identify different regimes
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

6
based on the flight activity of the aircraft.” Spec. ¶ 22; see also ¶ 33.2 The
data is referred to as “sequential time-series numerical data” because it is the
data taken from sensors in time sequence when a rotorcraft is operating
during a time period. Spec. ¶¶ 13,3 33,4 43.5
The claim recites that the “regime engine” is “configured to utilize
sequential time-series numerical data to identify a top tier regime from a
group of top tier regimes and to subsequently identify a sub-regime of the
selected top tier regime” (emphasis added). The process of identifying the
regimes, as we interpret the claim, appears in the “wherein” clause of the
claim, which the Examiner determined is not in compliance with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The first part of the “wherein” clause reads as follows: “wherein when
a portion of the sequential time-series numerical data is recognized by the

2 “Measurement analyzer 414 receives and processes measurements from
receiver 412. In one example embodiment, measurement analyzer 414
identifies loads and other information based on the received measurements
that may be used for regime recognition.”
3 “During operation of rotorcraft 100, rotorcraft 100 may operate in multiple
regimes at the same time. For example, FIGURE 2 shows different example
regimes in which rotorcraft 100 may operate between time 0 and time t.”
4 “Measurement analyzer 414 may also identify timestamps corresponding to
the received measurements so that regime recognition system 420 may
determine the time spent in each regime or even create a time history of
regimes.”
5 “In some embodiments, the regime engine can identify certain conditions
within sequential time-series sensor data and relate them to the behavior of
what the sensors were attached to. In some embodiments, the conditions
and/or regimes can be defined with complex logic, thresholds, time
durations, and the use of relationships to drill down to the root of the
behavior. The regime engine 422 can be a software engine that takes in
sequential time-series numerical data and identifies occurrences of user-
defined behaviors (regimes) within the data.”
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

7
regime engine as matching multiple top tier regimes.” The Examiner’s
rejection appears to be based on the determination that the Specification
does not use the term “matching” with respect to how the regime engine
identifies the top-tier from the sequential time-series data. We do not agree
with the Examiner’s determination. As explained below, we find that the
Specification provides a written description of the disputed claimed
limitation.
The Specification discloses that the regime engine “identifies flight
regimes that the aircraft operated in.” Spec. ¶ 35. The Specification explains
that, in some embodiments, “regime engine 422 identifies the flight regimes
based on a comparison of the measurements received and processed by
measurement analyzer 414 to the regime definitions stored in regime records
426.” Id. (emphasis added). A comparison between flight data measurements
and a regime definition to identity whether the rotorcraft experienced a top-
tier regime would be understood, based on the definition of “comparison,”6
to determine whether the flight data measurements match features in the
regime definition.
The claim requires that the “matching” is applied by the regime
engine on “a portion of the sequential time-series numerical data.” This
aspect is also described in the Specification. The Specification explains:
In some embodiments, the regime engine can identify certain
conditions within sequential time-series sensor data and relate
them to the behavior of what the sensors were attached to. In
some embodiments, the conditions and/or regimes can be
defined with complex logic, thresholds, time durations, and the

6 “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and
dissimilarities.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comparison
(last accessed Mar. 9, 2021).
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

8
use of relationships to drill down to the root of the behavior.
The regime engine 422 can be a software engine that takes in
sequential time-series numerical data and identifies occurrences
of user-defined behaviors (regimes) within the data.
Spec. ¶ 43.
Paragraph 43 of the Specification expressly describes looking
“within” sequential time-series numerical data for regimes, which is the
same as “matching” a “portion” of the time-series data to a definition of a
top tier regime. Paragraph 44 also describes matching a portion of time
sequential data to a top-tier regime, but using different words:
In some embodiments, regime engine 422 can be operated as
shown in FIGURE 7 to search through the data in a
hierarchical, multi-pass, manner that identifies the highest level
of regimes first and lowest level of regimes last. In such cases,
the regime engine 422 can first parse data to identify a phase of
flight 702. Next, the regime engine 422 can search for the
presence of a maneuver 704 that is a sub-regime of the phase of
flight 702 regime.
Parsing through data as described in paragraph 44 to identify a “phase
of flight,” which we understand to include a top-tier regime (such as take-
off, landing, or hover), is the same as searching through the time-series data
to identify a portion of it that matches a regime because “parsing” 7 is
examining the data for the presence of measurements that indicate a regime
has occurred.
Paragraph 44 also makes clear that “portions” of the data that match
regimes are identified because it refers to definitions based on entry and exit
criteria, indicating that the data is searched for a match between definitions

7 “to examine in a minute way : analyze critically.” https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/parsing (last accessed March 9, 2021).
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

9
of an exit and an entry within the time-series data to determine that a regime
has occurred:
In some embodiments, each tier of regimes is identified
according to so-called normal definitions and block definitions
prior to utilizing lower tiers of regime definitions to parse the
data. Normal definitions of regimes can be structured based on
entry and exit criteria. The entry and/or exit criteria can be
defined with one or more parameters, thresholds, and durations.
As a simple example, a one parameter entry condition could be
that a regime is entered when an indicated airspeed is greater
than or equal to 100 knots and less than 150 knots for at least
five seconds.
Spec. ¶ 44.
The Specification also describes “matching multiple top tier regimes.”
Paragraph 35 expressly discloses that the regime engine “identifies the flight
regimes based on a comparison” with “regime definitions,” which indicates
that “multiple regimes” from the data are matched. Likewise, paragraph 44,
as copied in part above, discloses searching through data to identify “the
highest level of regimes first,” indicating that multiple top tier regimes are
identified.
In sum, while the Specification does not use the same terms in recited
in the claim, such as “matching” and a “portion,” the Specification
describes, using different terms, matching regions to a portion of data. 35
U.S.C. §112(a) does not require that the wording in a claim be identical to
the verbiage used in the specification as long as there is sufficient disclosure
to show one of skill in the art that the inventor “invented what is claimed.”
Union Oil, 208 F.3d at 997; see also ICU Med., 558 F.3d. at 1377; Alton, 76
F.3d at 1175. We find that the Specification provides sufficient disclosure to
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

10
show that the inventors invented what is recited in the limitation at issue in
amended claim 20, despite using different language from the claim.
The Examiner also indicated that the Specification does not describe
that “the regime engine is configured to select a regime having a higher
priority than the other matching top tier regimes.” We disagree. As
discussed, the Specification describes matching the time-series data to a
regime definitions to identify multiple tip tier regimes within the data.
Paragraph 43 discloses selecting those regimes with a higher priority:
“Regimes also have the option to be given a priority so that a regime with a
higher priority has the ability to overwrite portions of a lower priority
regime.” Paragraph 45 further discloses: “regimes can be defined as having
relative priorities so that when a higher priority regime occurs during a same
time as lower priority regimes, only the higher priority regime is registered
as occurring during the period in which the regimes overlapped.” Thus, the
Specification describes prioritizing regimes when multiple regimes have
been identified or matched in the time-series data.
In sum, we conclude that the Specification conveys with reasonable
clarity that the inventors possessed the claimed invention with the recited
limitations at issue in the rejection. Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64;
Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d at 1572.
The Examiner also stated that the claim is indefinite because “it is
unclear how a portion of the sequential time-series numerical data is
defined and how it is matching multiple top tier regimes.” Ans. 4. We find
no ambiguity in the claim language. See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. The
claim recites that “a portion of the sequential time-series numerical data is
recognized by the regime engine as matching multiple top tier regimes.” The
Appeal 2020-006572
Application 15/477,889

11
claim does not limit how the recognition is made to determine whether there
is a match between the data and top tier regimes. The Examiner did not
adequately explain the purported indefiniteness. A “portion” of the data
would be the part of the time-series numerical data that the engine
recognizes as matching a top tier regime. Again, we see no lack of clarity in
the language of the claim. Accordingly, we also conclude the claim is in
compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
20–22 112(a) Written description 20–22
20–22 112(b) Definiteness 20–22
Overall
Outcome
20–22

REVERSED