Ex Parte He

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

11698119 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/698,119 01/26/2007
89955 7590 07/27/2018
HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gang He
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.
H0012360-5608 (002.2406) 5246
EXAMINER
HORNER, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
honeywell@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GANG HE
Appeal2017-002723
Application 11/698, 119
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18, 21, and 23-27, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 7, 10, 15, 19, 20, and 22 have been cancelled previously.
Appeal2017-002723
Application 11/698, 119
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's Specification describes a method and a vehicle display
system for displaying enhanced vision (EV) and synthetic vision (SV)
images. See Spec. 2.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims under appeal and
reads as follows:
1. An aircraft display system for displaying enhanced
vision (EV) and synthetic vision (SV) images to an operator
associated with an aircraft, comprising:
an EV image sensor configured to generate EV images;
an SV database containing information regarding terrain
and objects of interest for a travel path of the aircraft as objects
of interest data;
an SV image generating unit for generating SV images
based on travel of said aircraft and information from said SV
database;
a display configured to display images generated by said
EV image sensor and said SV image generating unit;
an EV image sensor control unit configured to control a
field of view of said EV image sensor, the EV image sensor
control unit comprising:
a priority unit coupled to the SV database and
configured to determine priority levels for the objects of
interest, wherein the priority unit selects a first object of
interest for display on the display based on the priority
levels and the travel path,
an integrity unit coupled to the SV database and
configured to assign integrity levels to the objects of
interest, including a first integrity level for the first object
2
Appeal2017-002723
Application 11/698, 119
of interest, wherein each of the integrity levels is based
on a confidence level of the objects of interest data stored
in the SV database associated with the respective object
of interest, and
a sensor area optimizing unit coupled to the
priority unit and the integrity unit and configured to (i)
assign an imaging area within the field of view with an
area size based on the first integrity level of the first
object of interest and (ii) output steering control signals
to the EV image sensor based on the assigned imaging
area.
The Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-18, 21, 23-24,
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Corzillus (US 2003/0193562 Al; Published Oct. 16, 2003), Hui et al. (US
5,640,165; Issued June 17, 1997) ("Hui"), de Silva et al. (US 2006/0247855
Al; Published Nov. 2, 2006) ("de Silva"), and Lareau et al. (US 6,130,705;
Issued Oct. 10, 2000) ("Lareau"). See Final Act. 6-13.
The Examiner further added Wallick et al. (US 2006/0005136 Al;
Published Jan. 5, 2006) ("Wallick") to reject claims 25 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a). See Final Act. 14--15.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Corzillus as disclosing the
recited display system including an enhanced vision (EV) image sensor that
generates EV images and a synthetic vision (SV) image generating unit that
generates SV images based on the travel of the vehicle and information from
an SV database. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Corzillus Fig. 2, ,r,r 8, 10). The
Examiner further relies on Hui as disclosing an SV collection, an SV image
3
Appeal2017-002723
Application 11/698, 119
generating unit, and a priority unit (Final Act. 7 ( citing Hui Fig. 2, 4: 10-
25) ). The Examiner explains that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the EV and SV
system of Corzillus such that it generates SV images based on a priority of
an SV image collection as taught by Hui et al. because it provides increased
focus in the near range (Hui et al[.]: [A]bstract)." Final Act. 7-8. Finally,
the Examiner finds de Silva teaches the recited selecting the first object to
display based on the priority level, whereas Lareau teaches the recited sensor
area optimizing unit. See Final Act. 8-10 (citing de Silva ,r,r 41, 50; Lareau
6:15-17, 30-41, 59-63).
Appellant contends the proposed combination of references does not
teach or suggest the claimed display having EV and SV images and,
specifically, argues the display windows identified in Corzillus display video
feeds that are captured by cameras rather than an SV image. App. Br. 24--
25. Appellant points to the interpretation the Examiner advances for the
term "SV image" and argues paragraph 10 of Corzillus describes windows
201 and 203 as images obtained from the first and second video cameras,
and argues neither one represents a synthetic vision image. App. Br. 25. To
define an SV image, Appellant relies on paragraph 15 of the Specification,
which describes the synthetic vision as an image rendered "based on pre-
stored terrain, objects of interest, obstructions, etc., and navigation
information stored in the SV database." App. Br. 26. Additionally,
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on de Silva as disclosing an
integrity unit coupled to the SV database is in error because the disclosed
4
Appeal2017-002723
Application 11/698, 119
priority list is characterized as both the claimed "confidence level" and
"integrity level." App. Br. 26-27. 3
In response, the Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the recited claim limitation "SV image," in view of Appellant's
disclosure, "allows for viewing 'essential terrain' which is 'outside the view
of the EV system."' Ans. 3. The Examiner compares Appellant's Figure 5B
with Corzillus Figure 2 and explains:
As shown above, the synthetic vision system of the instant
application is shown as 194. Corzillus teaches synthetic vision
in window 201. While the Examiner notes that the concept of
an SV image argued by the Appellant is different than that of
the prior art, the claims do not limit the SV image to what the
Appellant is arguing. The SV image in the claims is not
required to be any sort of virtual image. The concept of a
"synthetic vision" image is very broad. The term itself does not
require that the image have virtual representations of objects.
Ans. 5. The Examiner further explains the combination of the priority
system of Hui with the SV image of Corzillus results in the disputed
limitation as "the priority of the objects in the SV image are used to alter the
SV image." Ans. 5---6.
Based on a review of Corzillus, we are persuaded by Appellant's
contention that the Examiner has not explained how the images shown in
windows 201 and 203 of Figure 2 of Corzillus meet the claimed "enhanced
vision (EV)" and "synthetic vision (SV)" images. In providing the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the SV image, the Examiner does not take into
account the description provided in Appellant's Specification that "[t]he
synthetic vision system 120 renders an image based on pre-stored terrain,
3 We do not address Appellant's other contentions because this contention is
dispositive of the issue on appeal.
5
Appeal2017-002723
Application 11/698, 119
objects of interest, obstructions, etc. and navigation information stored in the
SV database 170 for output to the display 190. The synthetic vision system
120 also generates the SV images based on information from flight
management systems 180, such as vehicle positioning, heading, attitude,
flight plan, etc." See Spec. ,r 15. Therefore, the Examiner characterizes the
images in window 201 in Figure 2 of Corzillus as the SV image, whereas
similar to the EV image in window 203, the source of the window 201 image
is another video camera. See id. As further pointed out by Appellant (Reply
Br. 4--5), both image sources in windows 201 and 203 of Corzillus are video
cameras and not from any SV database. In other words, the Examiner has
not explained how the teachings of Hui with respect to a range cell data
relate to any EV or SV images recited in claim 1 or suggest modifying the
images from video cameras in Corzillus to provide a synthetic vision image
that includes navigation information.
The Examiner has not identified any additional teachings in the other
applied prior art that would make up for the above-mentioned deficiency.
Therefore, Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claims 9 and 18 which recite similar limitations with respect to
generating an SV image. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims
1, 9, and 18, as well as claims 3---6, 8, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, and 23-27
dependent therefrom.
6
Appeal2017-002723
Application 11/698, 119
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-
14, 16-18, 21, and 23-27.
REVERSED
7