Ex Parte Naimer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

11634663 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOACHIM LAURENZ NAIMER, FRANK HUMMEL, JOHN
JORGENSEN, and PATRICK KROHN
____________

Appeal 2011-003379
Application 11/634,6631
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS
MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 The real party in interest is Universal Avionics Systems Corporation.
Appeal 2011-003379
Application 11/634,663
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention concerns a monitoring system for notifying a
pilot that an aircraft is approaching a geographical feature of interest, such as
a runway. Upon entry into a “containment area” associated with a
geo-referenced airport chart, a processor initiates a notification signal to a
display unit, causing a visible notification to be displayed (Spec. 9-10).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A monitoring system for notifying a pilot that an
aircraft is approaching a geographical feature of interest, the
system comprising:

a database including geo-referenced airport chart data;

a processor;

a positioning system configured to identify the position
and velocity of the aircraft, and transmit data corresponding to
the position and velocity to the processor;

a display unit configured to display the geo-referenced
airport chart and to display the present position of the aircraft
on the geo-referenced airport chart;

wherein the processor receives the position and velocity
data from the positioning system, responds to the velocity data
by defining a size of a containment area associated with the
geo-referenced airport chart, and then determines whether the
aircraft has entered the containment area; and

wherein upon entry of the aircraft into a containment
area, the processor initiates a notification signal to the display
unit, causing a visible notification to be displayed on the
display unit.

Appeal 2011-003379
Application 11/634,663
3
REFERENCES
Corcoran US 6,606,563 B2 Aug. 12, 2003
Young US 3,896,432 July 22, 1975

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 10-15, 18-22, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Corcoran.
Claims 8, 9, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Corcoran.
Claims 25 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Corcoran in view of Young.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that Corcoran does not teach altering a size of the
containment area in response to the velocity of the aircraft (App. Br. 8-9); a
geo-referenced aircraft chart or aircraft chart data (App. Br. 9-10); or a
change in display of a geographical feature on the geo-referenced airport
chart (App. Br. 10).
With reference to claims 25 and 32, Appellants argue that the person
having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine
Corcoran with Young because the error in Young has to do with an aircraft
not being on the proper landing path (App. Br. 12).
Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s findings present us with
the following issues:
1. Does Corcoran teach defining, or altering, a size of the containment
area in response to the velocity of the aircraft?
2. Does Corcoran teach a geo-referenced airport chart?
3. Does Corcoran teach visible notification comprising a change in
display of a geographical feature on the geo-referenced airport chart?
Appeal 2011-003379
Application 11/634,663
4
4. Does the combination of Corcoran and Young teach or fairly
suggest comparing the airport chart display and aircraft display with the
airport chart data and aircraft position data, and providing a notification to
the pilot in the event that a display error is detected?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence are there so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”)
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 4-10, 12-18, 21-24, 26, AND 28-31
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-003379
Application 11/634,663
5
We do not agree with Appellants that Corcoran fails to teach
responding to the velocity data by defining a size of a containment area
(claims 1 and 10) or altering a size of the containment area in response to the
velocity of the aircraft (claim 18) (App. Br. 8-9). Rather, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Corcoran teaches alarm generation at a variable
distance from the zone of awareness, based on the aircraft’s speed (Ans. 12-
13). “[P]rocessor 211 may increase the fixed distance at which an alert is
initiated . . . . The amount of increase, for instance, may be proportional, or
otherwise related to, the speed at which the vehicle is approaching the zone
of awareness” (Corcoran, col. 7, ll. 19-26). We agree with the Examiner that
Corcoran’s adjustable alarm envelope corresponds to the alterable
containment area recited in the claims.
We further find that Corcoran teaches the claimed “geo-referenced
airport chart.” Appellants’ Specification discloses that, in such a chart, each
coordinate on the chart is indexed to a particular geographical location
having a specific latitude and longitude, as determined relative to a fixed
global reference frame (Spec. ¶ [0012]). Corcoran teaches that “location
information stored on storage device 202 may include the location of a
reference from which the zone of awareness is defined. . . . [T]he location
information may be the coordinates of the endpoints of line segments. The
coordinates may be relative to the surface of the earth, and may be longitude
and latitude” (col. 5, ll. 33-39). We therefore find that the chart information
stored in Corcoran corresponds to the “geo-referenced airport chart” recited
in the claims.
We agree with the Examiner that Corcoran teaches all the limitations
of claims 1, 4-10, 12-18, 21-24, 26, and 28-31. We will sustain the
Examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections over Corcoran.
Appeal 2011-003379
Application 11/634,663
6
CLAIMS 2, 3, 11, 19, 20, AND 27
Appellants’ argument that Corcoran does not teach a change in
display of a geographical feature on the geo-referenced airport chart (App.
Br. 10) is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 16;
Corcoran col. 8, ll. 50-51) that the addition of a visual indication such as
“RUNWAY” constitutes a change in the display of a geographical feature on
a geo-referenced airport chart, within the meaning of claims 2, 3, 11, 19, 20,
and 27.
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2, 3, 11, 19,
20, and 27 under § 102, and we will sustain the rejection.
CLAIMS 25 AND 32
Claims 25 and 32 recite providing a notification to the pilot in the
event that a display error is detected.
In concluding that the combination of Corcoran and Young obviates
the claimed invention, the Examiner states that Young “was used to show
that error checking by comparing data is known in the art,” and that both
Young and Corcoran both pertain to displaying information related to an
airport (Ans. 16-17).
We do not agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. Rather, we agree
with Appellants’ argument that the references contain divergent teachings.
Corcoran issues an alert when an aircraft moves too close to a geographical
feature, and does not use image comparison (App. Br. 12). Young describes
a radar based navigation system for guiding an aircraft along the proper
approach for landing (id.). The error in Young is the deviation of the actual
approach image from the optimum approach image, an error that does not
exist in Corcoran (id.).
Appeal 2011-003379
Application 11/634,663
7
We conclude that the Examiner erred in putting forth a prima facie
case for the obviousness of claims 25 and 32. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Corcoran teaches defining or altering a size of the containment area
in response to the velocity of the aircraft.
2. Corcoran teaches a geo-referenced airport chart.
3. Corcoran teaches visible notification comprising a change in
display of a geographical feature on the geo-referenced airport chart.
4. The combination of Corcoran and Young does not teach or fairly
suggest comparing the airport chart display and aircraft display with the
airport chart data and aircraft position data, and providing a notification to
the pilot in the event that a display error is detected.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 and 26-31 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 25 and 32 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

peb