Ex Parte Hinnant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

13568961 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 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.
13/568,961 08/07/2012 Harris O. Hinnant JR. 11-1678-US-NP 7220
7590 06/14/2017
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman (Boeing)
150 S. Wacker Drive
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
MARTINEZ BORRERO, LUIS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
docketing@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARRIS O. HINNANT JR. and DARIN W. BREKKE
Appeal 2015-0041111
Application 13/5 68,9612
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 9, 2014)
and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 24, 2015), and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 24, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed May 14, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004111
Application 13/568,961
BACKGROUND
The Specification relates to systems and “methods of determining
navigation states of a platform [such as an aircraft] beyond the position,
velocity, and altitude of the platform as a whole,” and “determining states of
the structure of a platform for use in controlling the structure of the platform
in response to external environmental variables.” Spec. 13.
CLAIMS
Claims 1—25 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
1. A system, comprising:
a first processing node associated with a first structural
location of a platform, the first processing node to determine a
first aeroelastic navigation state of the platform at the first
structural location of the platform with respect to a first
aeroelasticity reference;
a second processing node associated with a second
structural location of the platform different than the first
structural location, the second processing node to determine a
second aeroelastic navigation state of the platform at the second
structural location of the platform with respect to the first
aeroelasticity reference or a second aeroelasticity reference; and
a storage device to store a platform navigation state based
on at least one of the first or second aeroelastic navigation
states.
Appeal Br., App. A, Al.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 5—16, and 18—25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hinnant.3
3 Hinnant, Jr. et al., US 2007/0096979 Al, pub. May 3, 2007.
2
Appeal 2015-004111
Application 13/568,961
2. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hinnant in view of Schmidt.4
3. The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hinnant in view of Hwang.5
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hinnant discloses a
first processing node, a second processing node, and a storage device as
claimed. Final Act. 2—6. In particular, the Examiner relies on the same
structure of Hinnant as disclosing the first and second processing nodes. Id.
(citing Hinnant, Fig. 1, || 7, 19, 24, 25, 32, 33, 35).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has not
shown how Hinnant discloses first and second processing nodes as claimed.
Appellants first argue that the measurement data obtained at different points
on Hinnant’s platform is not an aeroelastic navigation state at a structural
location of the platform with respect to an aeroelasticity reference as
required for each of the claimed processing nodes. Appeal Br. 8—11. We
agree. Although, Hinnant describes obtaining inertial measurement units
(IMUs) or measurement navigation units 110 at various locations on a
structure, Hinnant describes that these are measurements alone and are not
disclosed as providing aeroelastic navigation states with respect to an
aeroelasticity reference. See, e.g., Hinnant 125 (disclosing that the
processing node is configured to collect navigation data from a reference
navigation unit and from measurement navigation units in order to compute
4 Schmidt et al., US 2011/0154907 Al, pub. June 30, 2011.
5 Hwang et al., US 2007/0162821 Al, pub. July 12, 2007.
3
Appeal 2015-004111
Application 13/568,961
a navigation solution). Thus, the measurement navigation units 110 may not
be considered to constitute processing nodes as claimed.
Next, Appellants argue that Hinnant describes only a single
processing node to compute all navigation solutions for the platform.
Appeal Br. 11—12. We agree that the Examiner has not shown that Hinnant
explicitly or implicitly discloses multiple processing nodes as required by
the claim. In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner states,
“Hinnant not only describes that one unit computes navigation solution but
also one or more microprocessors may carry out a variety of functions (See
at least 10014). So, by utilizing one or more processing nodes, the system
can determine the aeroelastic state of the platform in different locations.”
Ans. 3. In paragraph 14, Hinnant discloses that “an embodiment of the
invention may employ various integrated circuit components, e.g., memory
elements, digital signal processing elements, logic elements, look-up tables,
or the like, which may carry out a variety of functions under the control of
one or more microprocessors or other control devices.” Although such may
indicate that multiple processing elements are provided in the system,
Hinnant, nonetheless, discloses only a single processing unit 106 for
computing navigation states. We see no explicit indication in the portions of
Hinnant cited that the processing unit is separated into multiple processing
nodes, and we are not persuaded that Hinnant’s reference to “one or more
microprocessors” shows that Hinnant inherently discloses multiple
processing nodes.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 12, which
4
Appeal 2015-004111
Application 13/568,961
similarly requires the use of first and second processing nodes. See Appeal
Br., App. A, A3. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5—11,
13—16, and 18—25, which depend from either claims 1 or 12.
Obviousness
Because the Examiner has not established that the art of record cures
the deficiencies in the rejection of the independent claims as discussed
above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 4 and 17.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—25 for the reasons set forth
above.
REVERSED
5