Ex Parte Gannon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 10, 2012

11089727 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte AARON J. GANNON and SHEPHEN G. McCAULEY
____________________

Appeal 2009-010764
Application 11/089,727
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-010764
Application 11/089,727

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-11, 14-16, 18-20, and 22-29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The claimed subject matter is useful in, for example, aircraft. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A system for eliminating confusion between weather data
and terrain data in a visual display, comprising:
a weather data source operable to generate weather data;
a data storage unit, said data storage unit operable to
store at least one of absolute terrain data and relative terrain
data;
a processing unit coupled to said weather data source and
said data storage unit, said processing unit operable to:
receive said weather data;
retrieve said at least one of said absolute terrain data and
said relative terrain data, and
overlay at least a portion of said weather data on said at
least one of said absolute terrain data and said relative terrain
data; and
a display unit coupled to said processing unit, said
display unit operable to display said at least one of said absolute
terrain data and said relative terrain data, and display said
overlaid weather data in a display sweep.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Seitz
Dwyer
Dwyer
Bright
US 5,049,886
US 2002/0149599 A1
US 6,653,947 B2
US 7,061,450 B2
Sep. 17, 1991
Oct. 17, 2002
Nov. 25, 2003
Jun. 13, 2006

Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b):
Appeal 2009-010764
Application 11/089,727

3
I. Claims 1-2, 14-16, 22-24, and 27-29 as anticipated by Dwyer ‘599.
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
II. Claims 6-9 and 19-20 as unpatentable over Dwyer ‘599 and Dwyer
‘947.
III. Claims 5, 10-11, and 18 as unpatentable over Dwyer ‘599 and Seitz.
IV. Claims 25-26 as unpatentable over Dwyer ‘599 and Bright.

We AFFIRM.

OPINION
Each of the Examiner’s rejections relies on a finding that Dwyer ‘599
describes a system using a display sweep as required by the claims. Ans. 4,
7, 9, 11; see also Ans. 12 (providing a more detailed explanation of the
Examiner’s interpretation of “sweep”). Appellants do not challenge the
veracity of the Examiner’s finding with respect to the Examiner’s offered
interpretation of “sweep,” but rather argue that the Examiner fails to
interpret the “sweep” limitation of the claims properly. App. Br. 9-16;
Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, a dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the
Examiner properly construed the term “sweep” according to the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification.1
Both the Examiner (Ans. 12) and Appellants (Reply Br. 3) offer
reasoned interpretations of the term “sweep.” Neither offers evidence in
support of their offered interpretations, such as to demonstrate that one of
ordinary skill in the art would interpret “sweep” in the manner proposed.

1 Appellants also request we withdraw the finality of the rejections before us.
Reply Br. 2-3. This is a petitionable matter. See 37 C.F.R. 1.181(a)(1); see
also MPEP 706.07(c).
Appeal 2009-010764
Application 11/089,727

4
Appellants do not allege, nor do we find, the Specification limits the term
“sweep” in any way prohibiting the Examiner’s interpretation. Even if we
were to find, arguendo, Appellants’ interpretation of “sweep” superior (e.g.,
more widely accepted), the Examiner is to interpret “sweep” in view of the
broadest reasonable interpretation, which necessarily can include less
common but nonetheless valid interpretations by one of ordinary skill in the
art. Appellants point out differences between the Examiner’s definition of
“display sweep” and their proposed definition (Reply Br. 3), but they do not
explain why the Examiner’s interpretation of “sweep” is in error, i.e., not
included in the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sweep” by one of
ordinary skill in the art when interpreted in light of Appellants’
Specification.2
Furthermore, we do not find the Examiner’s interpretation of “sweep”
(Ans. 4, 12) as the display and updating of data on a screen to be
unreasonable or inconsistent with the Specification. For example, in
paragraph [0015], a sweep is described as displaying and updating
(“painting”) data on a visual display (or, screen).
In view of the above, we do not find error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of “sweep” or the Examiner’s finding that Dwyer discloses
such a display sweep. This being the dispositive issue with respect to all of
the rejections, we affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1, 2, 5-
11, 14-16, 18-20, and 22-29. No time period for taking any subsequent

2 Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s proposed definition does not
account for a “dwell time” or duration that weather data is displayed (Reply
Br. 3) is not persuasive because this feature is recited in dependent claims,
indicating that it is not to be read into “display sweep.”
Appeal 2009-010764
Application 11/089,727

5
action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

MP