Ex Parte Landers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

14574496 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/574,496 12/18/2014 Thomas Landers
15846 7590 12/21/2018
LKGLOBAL (GD-Gulfstream)
7010 East Cochise Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
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.
014.9126 1003
EXAMINER
ANTONUCCI, ANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
generaldynamics@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS LANDERS
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation ("Appellant") is the Applicant,
according to 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A flight control computer, comprising:
an inertial sensor incorporated within the flight control computer.
Br. 23 (Claims App.).
REJECTI0NS 2
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 11, 14--16, and 21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Liu Yi (CN 203870472 U, published
Aug. 10, 2014)3 and Electronic Design (ELECTRONICDESIGN, Smart Sensor
Combines 3-Axis Accelerometer With Microcontroller,
https ://www.electronicdesign.com/products/ smart-sensor-combines-3-axis-
accelerometer-microcontro ller (last visited Dec. 12, 2018)). 4
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Liu Yi, Electronic Design, and
Osborne (US 2005/0150289 Al, published July 14, 2005).
2 The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for inadequate
written description and enablement have been withdrawn. See Ans. 3; Final
Act. 17-22.
3 The Examiner provides an English-language translation of the
Specification of Liu Yi ("Liu Yi translation"). Any reference hereinafter to
Liu Yi is to the Liu Yi translation.
4 As both the Examiner and Appellant refer to reference CN 203870472 U as
"Liu Yi," and refer to the reference titled "Smart Sensor Combines 3-Axis
Accelerometer With Microcontroller" as "Electronic Design," we will also.
2
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 11, 14-16, and 21 over Liu Yi and Electronic Design
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and 15
Appellant presents the same arguments for patentability for
independent claims 1 and 10 (see Br. 10-15), and does not present separate
arguments for dependent claims 2, 6, 11, and 15 (id.). We take claim 1 as
representative of this group, and claims 2, 6, 10, 11, and 15 stand or fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
As to claim 1, the Examiner notes that the term "flight control
computer" is not given a special definition in Appellant's Specification.
Final Act. 24. The Examiner finds that Liu Yi discloses an inertial sensor
and a flight control computer. Id. (citing Liu Yi, Abstract, ,r,r 5-12). The
Examiner acknowledges that Liu Yi does not disclose that the inertial sensor
is integrated within the flight control computer, as claimed. Ans. 3. The
Examiner determines, however, that Liu Yi discloses integration of the flight
control computer (which inherently includes a processor) with the inertial
sensor. Id. The Examiner finds that Electronic Design discloses an inertial
sensor with an embedded microcontroller. Final Act. 24. That is, the
Examiner finds that Electronic Design discloses integration of the
microcontroller with the sensor. Ans. 3--4; see also Final Act. 24. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious in view of Electronic
Design to modify the flight control computer of Liu Yi to integrate an
inertial sensor within the computer, to condense parts of an aircraft and
reduce the weight of the aircraft. Final Act. 24
Appellant contends that Electronic Design does not relate to a flight
control computer or to a processor of a flight control computer. Br. 11. This
3
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
argument is unpersuasive because it does not focus on the Examiner's
combination of the teachings of Liu Yi and Electronic Design, in which the
Examiner relies on Liu Yi, not Electronic Design, as disclosing a flight
control computer. See Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Electronic Design merely discloses a sensor
chip that: (1) is suitable for portable devices that require low power
consumption; (2) includes an accelerometer and an embedded
microcontroller; and (3) at most, could be used as an inertial sensor. Br. 11.
Appellant asserts that microcontrollers are single chips designed for
embedded application, but microprocessors instead include various discrete
chips and have more processing power as required by a flight control
computer. Id. at 11 n.2.
To the extent Appellant is arguing that Electronic Design fails to
disclose a computer or processor, we are not persuaded. Appellant
acknowledges that Electronic Design discloses a microcontroller. Id. at 11.
A definition of "microcontroller" is "a computer present in a single
integrated circuit which is dedicated to perform one task and execute one
specific application," and is known to "contain[] memory, programmable
input/output peripherals as well a processor."5 In view of this definition, we
disagree that Electronic Design does not disclose a computer or processor.
Appellant asserts, "[t]he Examiner indicated there was a teaching of a
processor in Liu Yi, but Appellant[] submit[ s] that there is no mention in the
5 See TECHOPEDIA, https://www.techopedia.com/definition/3641/micro
controller (last visited Nov. 30, 2018).
4
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
Liu Yi reference of a processor, not to mention that the flight control
computer includes such a processor." Id. at 11 n.1.
To the extent Appellant is asserting that Liu Yi does not disclose a
processor, this argument is unpersuasive. Liu Yi discloses "an integrated
flight controller, comprising a flight control computer." Liu Yi, Abstract
( emphasis added); see also id. ,r 12. Liu Yi also discloses that its device has
a circuit board 1. Id. at Fig. 1, ,r 12. As such, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner's finding that Liu Yi would include a processor to enable the
computer to function. See Ans. 3.
Appellant asserts there is no motivation to modify Liu Yi' s device
based on the teachings of Electronic Design. Br. 12. According to
Appellant, the Examiner's reason for modifying Liu Yi is conclusory, and
the modification is based on improper hindsight. Id. at 12-14.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious to modify the device of Liu Yi based on the
teachings of Electronic Device "to condense the parts on an aircraft and to
reduce the weight of the aircraft." Id. at 13 (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner points out Liu Yi discloses that reducing the size of components is
a desired feature for a flight control computer. Ans. 5 ( citing Liu Yi,
Abstract). We, thus, find that the Examiner's basis for modifying the device
of Liu Yi is based on evidence of record and technical reasoning.
Thus, as none of Appellant's arguments apprise us of error, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Liu Yi and Electronic Design.
Claims 2, 6, 10, 11, and 15 fall with claim 1.
5
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
Claims 5 and 14
Claims 5 and 14 require that the flight control computer further
comprise "a processor, and wherein the inertial sensor is integrated within
the processor of the flight control computer." Br. 23, 24 (Claims App.).
Appellant contends that Liu Yi does not disclose an inertial sensor
integrated within a processor of a flight control computer and that Electronic
Design does not disclose a processor for a flight control computer. Id. at 16.
These arguments effectively attack the applied references
individually. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Liu Yi, not
Electronic Design, for disclosing a flight control computer or processor,
relies on Electronic Design for disclosing an inertial sensor integrated with a
computer or processor, and combines the teachings of Liu Yi and Electronic
Design to result in the claimed subject matter. See Final Act. 24; Ans. 3--4.
Appellant contends that Liu Yi does not disclose that the flight control
computer has a processor. Br. 16. This argument is unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1.
Thus, none of Appellant's arguments apprise us of Examiner error in
rejecting claims 5 and 14. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 5
and 14 as unpatentable over Liu Yi and Electronic Design.
Claims 7, 16, and 21
Claim 7 recites "the flight control computer provides power to the
inertial sensor"; claim 16 recites "a power supply that is configured to
supply power to the flight control computer, and wherein the inertial sensor
is configured to be powered by the power supplied to the flight control
computer by the power supply"; and claim 21 recites "a bus within the flight
control computer; and a processor within the flight control computer,
6
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
wherein the processor and the inertial sensor are each communicatively
coupled to the bus by a connection that is internal to the flight control
computer." Id. at 23, 25-26 (Claims App.).
As to claims 7 and 16, Appellant contends that Liu Yi does not
disclose that its flight control computer provides power to an inertial sensor,
or disclose that its inertial sensor is powered by power supplied to its flight
control computer. Id. at 17-18. As to claim 21, Appellant contends that Liu
Yi does not disclose that a processor and an inertial sensor are each
communicatively coupled to a bus by a connection internal to the flight
computer. Id. at 21.
These contentions are unpersuasive. As discussed above, the
Examiner proposes to modify the flight control computer of Liu Yi based on
the teachings of Electronic Design to result in an inertial sensor incorporated
within ( or integrated within) the flight control computer. In the
combination, the inertial sensor would be powered by the modified flight
control computer, or would be powered by power supplied to the modified
flight control computer because of integration of the inertial sensor with the
flight control computer. See Ans. 7. Further, the processor and the inertial
sensor would be communicatively coupled to a bus by a connection that is
internal to the modified flight computer. See Final Act. 26 ( explaining that
because Electronic Design discloses an inertial sensor combined with a
computer or processor, the inertial sensor and processor would be connected
to the same bus). Appellant's contentions focus on the disclosure of Liu Yi
alone, rather than the flight control computer of Liu Yi as modified by the
teaching of Electronic Design. As such, the contentions do not address the
rejection.
7
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
Thus, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 7, 16, and 21 as unpatentable
over Liu Yi and Electronic Design.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 17-20 over Liu Yi, Electronic Design, and
Osborne
Claims 9, 19, and 20
As to claim 9, Appellant contends that Liu Yi' s inertial measurement
unit and Osborne's IRU are both external to, not incorporated within, their
flight control computers. Br. 19. As to claim 19, Appellant contends that
Liu Yi does not disclose comparing a first inertial sensor data to a second
inertial sensor data to check the validity of the second inertial sensor data.
Id. at 20. As to claim 20, Appellant contends that Osborne does not disclose
a processor configured to process a first inertial sensor data when the
processor determines that a second inertial sensor data is unavailable. Id.
Appellant's contentions do not address the rejection, as stated, but
rather, focus on the disclosure of Liu Yi or Osborne alone rather than on the
combined teachings of a flight control computer by Liu Yi, an inertial sensor
integrated with a computer by Electronic Design, and a redundant inertial
sensor by Osborne. See Final Act. 24, 28; Ans. 7-8.
Further, with respect to claim 19, Appellant does not explain why
Osborne does not disclose the claimed limitation. "A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim." 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); see also
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("we hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
8
Appeal2018-005353
Application 14/574,496
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.").
Accordingly, as Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error, we
sustain the rejection of claims 9, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Liu Yi,
Electronic Design, and Osborne.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 17, and 18
Appellant does not provide substantive argument for the rejection of
claims 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 17, and 18. As Appellant does not apprise us of error,
we sustain the rejection of these claims as unpatentable over Liu Yi,
Electronic Design, and Osborne.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9