Ex Parte Goossen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12959078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
12/959,078 12/02/2010 Emray Goossen H0025678-5548/1121-304US1 4359
89941 7590 03/22/2017
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
SMITH, JELANI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMRAY GOOSSEN and DERICK LUCAS GERLOCK
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to preparing and transmitting a flight
plan to Air Traffic Control. Spec. 13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of automatically filing a flight plan, the
method comprising:
receiving, with a computing device, user input defining one
or more flight locations for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
on a map displayed by the computing device;
automatically generating, using the computing device, an
electronic flight plan based on the one or more flight locations
for the UAV; and
transmitting the flight plan to an air traffic control (ATC)
system.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Murphy US 2003/0036827 A1 Feb. 20, 2003
Coulmeau US 2007/0129855 A1 June 7, 2007
Judd US 2008/0167885 A1 July 10, 2008
Hershey US 2009/0037035 A1 Feb. 5, 2009
Duggan US 2011/0184590 A1 July 28, 2011
White US 2012/0245836 A1 Sept. 27, 2012
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4—8, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coulmeau and Duggan.
2. Claims 2, 3, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulmeau, Duggan, and Murphy.
3. Claims 9, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Coulmeau, Duggan, and White.
2
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulmeau, Duggan, White, and Hershey.
5. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulmeau, Duggan, and Judd.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 4 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20
over Coulmeau and Duggan
Claims 1 and 4
Appellants argue claims 1 and 4 as a group. Appeal Br. 6—11. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
The Examiner finds that Coulmeau discloses the claimed invention
except for user input of defined flight locations on a computer display map.
Final Action 3. The Examiner relies on Duggan as disclosing this step. Id.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Coulmeau with
the teachings of Duggan to achieve the claimed invention. Id. According to
the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
enable an operator with minimal experience to operate the vehicle. Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that Duggan
fails to disclose user input defining a flight location on a computer map
display. Appeal Br. 6. In response, the Examiner directs our attention to the
following paragraph of Duggan as disclosing the claimed limitation.
Ans. 15.
[Mjission/route editing is performed manually by the operator,
using the graphical user interface “point-n-click” functionality
on the map or typing in the coordinates. The interface,
however, is illustratively designed generically so automated
route plans can be accepted. VACS contains automatic
3
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
route/mission analysis tools to alert the operator if a planned
mission is not physically realizable due to vehicle performance
constraints or terrain collision issues.
Duggan 1363. In reply, Appellants deny that paragraph 363 of Duggan
satisfies the claim language. Reply Br. 3. We disagree. Editing a route by
pointing and clicking with a graphical user interface on a map display
satisfies the claim. The Examiner’s finding that Duggan discloses a
computer device that receives flight location via user input on a map display
is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Next, Appellants assert that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest
using a computer to generate a flight plan and transmitting the flight plan to
Air Traffic Control. Appeal Br. 7. In response, the Examiner directs our
attention to paragraph 45 of Coulmeau as disclosing transmitting a flight
plan to Air Traffic Control. Ans. 17—18.
Coulmeau is directed to a flight management system for a manned or
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Coulmeau 11. Coulmeau discloses an
aircraft navigation aid device that includes a means for preparing a flight
plan and path for an aircraft. Id. 1 5. Coulmeau’s system uses computer
technology to modify a flight plan and path in flight. Id. Coulmeau’s
system transmits flight plan information to Air Traffic Control. Id. 145.
Duggan discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows an operator to
alter the course of a UAV inflight using real-time route editing. Duggan
11360-361. Duggan’s GUI provides the operator with a “point-n-click”
interactive system for real-time mission planning and route editing. Id.
11362—363. In view of the foregoing disclosures, we determine that the
Examiner’s findings of fact regarding computer flight plan generation and
transmission are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
4
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to articulate a
legitimate reason, with rational underpinning to support the proposed
combination. Appeal Br. 9. A reason to modify a prior art reference may be
found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the
“interrelated teachings of multiple patents”; “any need or problem known in
the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent”;
and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person
of ordinary skill. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418—21 (2007)). An implicit motivation to combine exists when the
improvement is technology-independent and the combination of references
results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example, because it
is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more
efficient. Dystar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal—and even
common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even
absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.
Id.
An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart
from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513,516
(CCPA 1962). In the instant case, Appellants’ Specification presumes a
certain level of familiarity with Air Traffic Control systems and the filing of
flight plans. See Spec. 113 (“conventional mechanisms for filing flight
plans with an Air Traffic Control (ATC) system”). Essentially, Appellants’
invention merely uses modem, but well known, computer and
5
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
telecommunications technology to automate and expedite older, manual
means for filing a flight plan with Air Traffic Control. It is well settled that
it is not patentable “invention” to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic
means to replace a manual activity that accomplishes the same result. In re
Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958); see also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (adaptation of an
old idea using newer technology that is commonly available and understood
in the art).
In the instant case, the Examiner explains that the proposed
combination would enable an operator with minimal experience to operate
the vehicle. Final Action 3. The Examiner reasons that the proposed
combination offers the desirable benefit of system operation using operators
with reduced experience and/or training. Id. This is a sufficient motivation
to support the rejection. Dystar, 464 F.3d at 1368.
We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit. In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the
Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence and that the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-
founded. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection
of claims 1 and 4.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “receiving, via
the computing device, user input defining at least one of pilot information,
vehicle information, or flight information.” Claims App. Appellants argue
that Duggan fails to disclose the added limitation of claim 5. Appeal Br. 12.
In view of our discussion regarding paragraphs 360-363 of Duggan in
6
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
connection with the rejection of claim 1, we reject Appellants’ argument and
sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and adds the limitation: “automatically
generating an electronic flight plan comprises automatically generating an
electronic flight plan comprising the at least one of pilot information, vehicle
information, or flight information and the one or more flight locations for the
UAV.” Claims App.
Appellants argue that Coulmeau and Duggan fail to disclose the added
limitation. Appeal Br. 13. This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons
previously discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5. As previously
discussed, Coulmeau discloses transmitting flight plan information to Air
Traffic Control, and Duggan permits real-time route editing in-flight.
Together, Coulmeau and Duggan disclose the invention of claim 6, and,
accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 6.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “wherein
automatically generating an electronic flight plan comprises adding the one
or more flight locations to an electronic flight plan template comprising at
least one of pilot information, vehicle information, or flight information.”
Claims App. The Examiner finds that this added limitation is disclosed by
Coulmeau. Final Action 4—5 (citing Coulmeau H 41, 43).
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that
Coulmeau fails to disclose a flight plan template or adding locations to a
template as claimed. Appeal Br. 14. This argument is unpersuasive.
Coulmeau stores a variety of flight plans to be used in an emergency
7
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
situation. Coulmeau ! 87 (comm failure), claim 8 (“executing computer
programs for modifying the flight plan”). Although Coulmeau may not use
the term “template,” its stored flight plan corresponds to a “template” as
broadly, but reasonably, construed. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (a reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test). As
previously discussed, Duggan permits real-time route editing in-flight.
Together, Coulmeau and Duggan disclose the invention of claim 7, and,
accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 7.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “converting,
with the computing device, the one or more flight locations to Global
Positioning System (GPS) data and adding the GPS data to the flight plan.”
Claims App. Appellants argue that Coulmeau fails to disclose adding GPS
data to a flight plan as claimed. Appeal Br. 15. This argument is
unpersuasive. Coulmeau discloses the use of GPS data for constructing
geographical routes. Coulmeau^ 18. Furthermore, Duggan performs real­
time route editing by “typing in the coordinates.” Duggan 1363. A person
of ordinary skill in aviation would have readily associated “coordinates”
with Latitude and Longitude coordinates that are well known to be used in
GPS systems. We sustain the unpatentability rejection of claim 8.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation:
“automatically modifying, with the computing device, the flight locations for
the UAV based on a range limit on flight of the UAV from a fixed location.”
Claims App. Appellants argue that Coulmeau fails to mention a “range
limit” or modifying flight locations based on a range limit. Appeal Br. 15.
8
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
Coulmeau automates the process of filing a revised flight plan in
response to an inflight emergency. Coulmeau 1 5. Examples of such
inflight emergencies include missed approach (| 38), cabin depressurization
(142), and engine failure (143). Coulmeau then explains:
[T]he program . . . prepares an optimized flight path in case of
emergency (engine failure, loss of communications, etc.), based
on the emergency procedures database, the airspaces crossed,
the airplane’s performances, traffic, weather, relief, ensures the
progress of this flight path and the sending of the flight path to
the ground, if air-to-ground communication via Datalink is
possible.
Id. 145 (emphasis added). Similarly, Duggan alerts the operator “if a
planned mission is not physically realizable due to vehicle performance
constraints.” Duggan 1363. A person of ordinary skill in aviation would
understand that reference to airplane “performance” encompasses an
aircraft’s ability to reach an alternate destination. A person of ordinary skill
in the art would not interpret Coulmeau as re-directing a plane, in the event
of an emergency, in a manner where it might run out of fuel before reaching
its alternate destination. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Coulmeau takes
aircraft range into account in modifying a flight plan is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. We sustain the unpatentability rejection of
claim 12.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation:
“automatically modifying, with the computing device, the flight locations for
the UAV based on a boundary of a controlled airspace.” Claims App.
Appellants argue that Coulmeau fails to disclose a boundary of controlled
airspace. Appeal Br. 16. This argument is without merit. Coulmeau
9
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
expressly discloses that emergency re-routing of an aircraft takes into
account “the airspaces crossed.” Coulmeau 145. A person of ordinary skill
in aviation would readily associate Coulmeau’s reference to “airspaces”
crossed with the “controlled airspace” of claim 13.
We sustain the unpatentability rejection of claim 13.
Claim 16 and 17
Appellants argue claims 16 and 17 together. Appeal Br. 17. We
select claim 16 as representative. Claim 16 is an independent claim that
differs from claim 1 in that it is an apparatus claim directed to an operator
control unit rather than a method. Claims App.
The Examiner finds that Coulmeau discloses the invention
substantially as claimed except for explicit disclosure of a display unit that
depicts locations on map display. Final Action 6. The Examiner relies on
Duggan as disclosing a computerized map display showing aircraft
locations. Final Action 7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify Coulmeau with Duggan to achieve the claimed invention
and would have done so for essentially the same reasons stated with respect
to the rejection of claim 1. Id.
Appellants argue that Duggan fails to disclose a processor configured
to receive user input defining one or more flight locations for a UAV on a
map display. Appeal Br. 17. This argument is refuted by the evidence of
record, as discussed above regarding Duggan’s paragraph 363 in connection
with the rejection of claim 1.
Next, Appellants argue that Coulmeau and Duggan do not disclose
automatically generating an electronic flight plan as claimed. Appeal Br. 17.
10
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
Appellants contend that Coulmeau merely selects an optimized flight path,
but does not generate and transmit a flight plan. Id. This argument is also
refuted by the evidence of record. Coulmeau explicitly discloses
“generating a flight plan” and sending the revised flight path “to the
ground.” Coulmeau, Abstract, ^ 5, 45. A person of ordinary skill in
aviation who is familiar with procedures for filing a flight plan and obtaining
Air Traffic Control clearance to execute a flight plan would readily associate
communicating a revised flight path “to the ground” with filing a flight plan
with Air Traffic Control. We sustain the unpatentability rejection of claims
16 and 17.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claims 1 and 16, except that it is specifically directed to a computer-
readable storage medium. Claims App. The Examiner relies on Coulmeau
as disclosing a computer readable storage medium. Final Action 7.
In traversing the rejection, Appellants rely on the same arguments that
we have considered and found unpersuasive with respect to claim 1 and
which we find equally unpersuasive here. The Examiner’s finding that
Coulmeau discloses a computer-readable storage medium is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, namely, Coulmeau disclosing a “means of
storage in the form of a computer database.” Coulmeau 1 5.
We sustain the unpatentability rejection of claim 20.
Unpatentability of Claims 2, 3, and 18
over Coulmeau, Duggan, and Murphy
Claims 2 and 3 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims
App. Claim 18 depends directly from claim 17 and indirectly from claim 16.
11
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
Id. In traversing the rejection, Appellants rely solely on arguments that we
previously considered and found unpersuasive with respect to claims 1
and 16 and find equally unpersuasive here. Appeal Br. 19. We sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 18.
Unpatentability of Claims 9, 10, and 19
over Coulmeau, Duggan, and White
Appellants argue claims 9, 10, and 19 together. Appeal Br. 19—20.
We select claim 9 as representative. Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and adds
the limitation: “generating a notice to air man (NOTAM) comprising the
one or more flight locations for the UAV.” Claims App. The Examiner
relies on White as disclosing this limitation. Final Action 10. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify Coulmeau and Duggan
with the NOTAM generation and transmission capability of White. Id.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this to facilitate improved use of airspace. Id.
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that White
fails to disclose generating a NOTAM comprising a flight location defined
by user input on a map. Appeal Br. 20. For purposes of this appeal, we
construe NOTAM broadly to encompass all communications between an
aircraft operator and Air Traffic Control that relate to information that may
be published by the FAA or similar aviation agency as a NOTAM. This
includes information that may be provided by an aircraft operator to Air
Traffic Control that would subsequently be relayed by the FAA to other
aircraft in the form of a NOTAM, such as a request to issue a NOTAM.
With this in mind, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive as it amounts to an
12
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
individual attack on one reference in a combination and it is well established
that non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner’s rejection is based on a combination of Coulmeau,
Duggan, and White. As previously discussed in connection with claim 1,
Duggan discloses route editing by an operator. Duggan 1363. White
discloses shared situation awareness tools for use in the surface management
of an airport. White H 3, 67. Such tools include real-time integrated air-to-
surface flight tracking, field condition reporting, diversion management,
airspace optimization, and eNOTAM integration with flight services. Id. at
1 67. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
integrate eNOTAM capability into Duggan’s in-flight route editing features,
including providing NOT AM-type information from an aircraft to Air
Traffic Control. We view this as nothing more than a routine exchange of
information between an aircraft operator and Air Traffic Control that is
modernized with the use of newer, but well known, computer and
telecommunications technology. Venner, 262 F.2d at 95; Leapfrog, 485
F.3d at 1162.
We sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 9, 10,
and 19.
Unpatentability of Claim 11
over Coulmeau, Duggan, White, and Hershey
Claim 11 depends directly from claim 10 and indirectly from claims 1
and 9 and adds the limitation: “adding the NOTAM to the flight plan.”
Claims App. Appellants argue that Hershey does not disclose that NOTAM
13
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
information is added to a flight plan and, instead, refers to flight plans and
NOTAMs as two separate pieces of data. Appeal Br. 21.
Our consideration of the rejection of claim 11 follows our treatment of
claims 9, 10, and 19 above. We agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to incorporate NOT AM-type information in communications
between an aircraft and Air Traffic Control relating to filing a flight plan.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Unpatentability of Claims 14 and 15
over Coulmeau, Duggan, and Judd
Appellants argue claims 14 and 15 together. Appeal Br. 21—22. We
select claim 14 as representative. Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and adds
the limitation: “receiving, with the computing device, at least one of an
unconditional approval, a conditional approval, or a denial of the flight plan
from the ATC system.” Claims App. Judd discloses downlinking a
clearance request message when approval of a clearance request to deviate
from a flight plan is received. Judd 12.
In traversing the rejection, Appellants argue that Judd fails to
overcome the deficiencies in Coulmeau and Duggan. Appeal Br. 21—22.
This argument is unpersuasive as we disagree with Appellants that
Coulmeau and Duggan exhibit deficiencies as alleged.
Appellants also argue, in conclusory fashion, that there would have
been no reason to combine and/or modify the prior art as proposed by the
Examiner. Id. This argument is without merit. Skilled aviators understand
that requesting and receiving clearance from Air Traffic Control involves
two-way communication. Such communication is also involved in
requesting and receiving clearance for deviations from an original flight plan
14
Appeal 2014-009746
Application 12/959,078
in-flight. The Examiner’s stated reason for combining the prior art, “so
notices can be adhered to in a timely fashion” (Final Act. 13), adequately
explains and justifies the rejection.
We sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
15