Ex Parte BOUFFANAIS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14044110 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/044,110 10/02/2013
23280 7590 09/27/2018
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th A venue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fabien BOUFFANAIS
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11000797.1006 6994
EXAMINER
WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
ddk@ddkpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FABIEN BOUFF ANAIS, BENOIT DE MAQUEVILLE,
OLIVIER GA VOUYERE, and ZDENEK JOHAN 1
Appeal2018-002317
Application 14/044, 110
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Fabien Bouffanais et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Dassault Aviation is identified as being the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002317
Application 14/044, 110
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to a nose section for a flying
machine. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A nose section for a flying machine, comprising:
an enclosure delimiting a nose cone extending along a
longitudinal axis, the enclosure delimiting a window,
a glass closing the window extending transversely relative to the
longitudinal axis;
an optical sensor positioned in the enclosure behind the glass,
the enclosure defining a recess, the window covered by the glass
being at least partially positioned in the recess,
the flying machine being subsonic,
the optical sensor being configured to emit a signal allowing the
display of an image representative of a terrain situated in front of
the flying machine.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over "Gulfstream EVS Places a Revolutionary Safety Standard
In Clear View" ( copyright 2002-2003) (hereinafter "Gulfstream") in view of
Johnson, Richard L., "Safety by Design: A Gulfstream Perspective" (Sept.
23, 2008) and Leek (US 7,392,963 Bl, published July 1, 2008).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Gulfstream discloses a nose radome-mounted
camera that provides a flight crew with a visual image of an airport and
surrounding terrain in front of an aircraft, in nighttime and low visibility
2
Appeal2018-002317
Application 14/044, 110
conditions. Final Act. 3. The Examiner notes that Gulfstream does not
explicitly disclose the positioning of the nose radome-mounted camera, and
cites to Johnson as disclosing an optical (infrared) sensor for a nose section
of a subsonic aircraft. Id. Further noting that Gulfstream and Johnson lack
disclosure of certain limitations in claim 1, the Examiner turns to Leek for
its disclosure of a nose cone enclosure delimiting a window; a glass
extending transversely to a longitudinal axis of the nose cone; an
"optical/radiation sensor" positioned in the enclosure behind the glass; with
the nose cone enclosure defining a recess; and with the window covered by
the glass being partially positioned in the recess. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner
additionally finds that, because the device in Leek is designed to fly at
supersonic speeds, it is also able to fly at subsonic speeds. Id. at 4.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use the
Leek arrangement of the nose section optical/radiation sensor arrangement
and components to configure the Gulfstream/Johnson imaging
camera/optical sensor, "in order to increase a field of view of the forward
looking optical sensor/camera for detection of terrain ... as well as to create
an aerodynamic nose section for an aircraft." Final Act. 4. The Examiner
also concludes, in the event that the Leek panel is not glass, that it would
have been obvious to use a panel made of glass in an optical sensor system,
in that this is seen as being the equivalent of a panel that is transparent to
other frequencies when such other frequencies are in use, such as in a radar
system. Id. at 4--5. 2
2 The Examiner makes substantially the same findings and determinations in
connection with independent claim 15. Final Act. 9--12.
3
Appeal2018-002317
Application 14/044, 110
Appellants maintain that the Examiner's expressed reason to use the
Leek structural arrangement, i.e., in order to increase a forward-looking field
of view for detection of terrain in front of the aircraft, lacks rational
underpinnings and any factual basis, and is based on use of improper
hindsight reconstruction. Appeal Br. 6. As pointed out by Appellants, Leek
does not address any field of view of its sensor, disclosing only that the
sensor is pointed along the axis of the weapon (Leek being specifically
directed to a supersonic guided weapon, such as a missile). Id., citing Leek
2:18-21. Additionally, Appellants argue that the additional rationale
advanced by the Examiner, i.e., to create an aerodynamic nose section for an
aircraft, also lacks rational underpinnings, in that the configuration provided
by Leek, including the recess extending forward of the window, is based on
desired aerodynamic effects achieved at supersonic speeds, which would not
apply to subsonic flight. Id. at 6-7. Specifically, Appellant points out that
the recess is provided to produce a shock wave pattern at the nose portion
that causes air to be trapped in the recess, to insulate the panel extending
over the window from excessive heat. Id. at 7; Leek 2:45-57. According to
Appellants, one skilled in the art would find no incentive to provide the Leek
recess in a subsonic flying machine. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner responds that an increase in field of view would result
from the combination, in that the window in Leek is larger than whatever
structure exists or is contemplated in Gulfstream and Johnson. Ans. 4. The
Examiner fails to respond to Appellants' arguments relative to the Leek
configuration providing the stated benefits only in supersonic flight, and
instead offers that Appellants "do not seem to argue the additional
4
Appeal2018-002317
Application 14/044, 110
motivation of creating an aerodynamic nose section." Id. (emphasis
omitted).
Appellants have the better position as to both issues joined above.
That a panel through which a sensor will look may or may not be bigger than
another does not necessarily result in the system having a larger field of
view, the size of the window being only one factor. Further, with Leek
disclosing that its sensor is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the weapon,
considerable doubt exists that the field of view would include terrain below
and in front of the weapon. Appellants have also accurately characterized
why the Leek weapon has a recess in the first place, and that reason appears
to have little to nothing to do with how to configure a nose of an aircraft to
include an optical sensor to view terrain below and forward of the aircraft.
The rejection of claims 1-15 as being unpatentable over Gulfstream,
Johnson, and Leek, is not sustained.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gulfstream, Johnson, and Leek.
REVERSED
5