Ex Parte Rath et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 18, 2010

11403472 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MANASWINI RATH, NANDEESHA D. SHEKARAPPA,
and VENKATESH RAMACHANDRA
____________

Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Manaswini Rath et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to unmanned air vehicles
(UAV). Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative
of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system comprising:
a ground control station to control an unmanned air
vehicle, the unmanned air vehicle configured to operate in an
autonomous mode and a manual mode;
a processing unit coupled to said ground control station;
a wireless datalink subsystem configured for remote
communication with said unmanned air vehicle;
a telemetry/telecommand module coupled to said ground
control station and configured to download onboard data from
said unmanned air vehicle to said ground station and to upload
commands from said ground station to said unmanned air
vehicle;
a graphical user interface coupled to said ground control
station and comprising a display module configured for display
of a plurality of downloaded onboard data from said unmanned
air vehicle; and
a user control module coupled to said ground control
station to allow operation of said unmanned air vehicle in said
autonomous mode or to implement user control of a plurality of
unmanned air vehicle control surfaces during said manual mode
operation of said unmanned air vehicle via said processing unit.
Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
3
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following Examiner’s rejections:
1. Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rios (US 6,694,228 B2, issued Feb. 17, 2004)
and Nichols (US 2006/0106506 A1, published May 18, 2006).
2. Rejection of claims 3, 9, 10, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rios, Nichols, and Hopkins (US 2006/0271251 A1,
published Nov. 30, 2006).
ISSUES
1. Is the rejection of independent claim 1 based upon a sufficient
reason with a rational underpinning to explain why a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified Rios’s system for manual operation of a
UAV to include Nichols’s technique of operating a UAV in autonomous
mode in response to a contingency?
2. Would the proposed combination of Rios and Nichols have led a
person of ordinary skill in the art to the subject matter of independent
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rios and Nichols
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 as a group.
App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 1-4. We select claim 1 as the representative
claim, and claims 2, 4-8, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising a ground control station
coupled to a user control module to allow operation of a UAV either in an
Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
4
autonomous mode, or in a manual mode which implements user control of a
plurality of UAV control surfaces.
The Examiner found (Ans. 3-4), and we agree, that Rios discloses a
system comprising a ground control station (base station 50) coupled to a
user control module (controller 52) to allow operation of a UAV (remotely
controlled vehicle 10) in a manual mode which implements user control of a
plurality of UAV control surfaces. Rios, col. 2, l. 56; col. 4, ll. 17-25. The
Examiner found that Rios fails to disclose a user control module coupled to
the ground control station to allow operation of the UAV in an autonomous
mode. Ans. 4.
The Examiner found (Ans. 4-5), and we agree, that Nichols discloses
a system comprising a ground station (e.g., ground station 18, 20, or 22)
coupled to a user control module (inherent) to allow operation of a UAV
(e.g., UAV 12, 14, or 16) in an autonomous mode. Nichols, 1, para. [0014];
2, para. [0019]. Further, the Examiner found (Ans. 9-10), and we agree, that
when the UAV is performing a predefined mission, if a contingency (critical
flight failure) occurs, such as loss of communication between the UAV and
the ground station, Nichols’s Automatic Contingency Generator (ACG)
generates an alternate, autonomous route for the UAV, and switches
operation of the UAV from the predefined mission to the ACG generated
route. Nichols, 1, para. [0013]; 1-2, para. [0016]; 2, para. [0019].
Appellants do not contest these findings by the Examiner as to the
scope and content of Rios and Nichols. Rather, Appellants make several
arguments that the rationale for the proposed modification provided by the
Examiner is inadequate. First, Appellants argue that Rios is directed to
improving the operation of a manually controlled UAV and has no need of
autonomous control, and Nichols is directed to switching a UAV from one
Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
5
autonomous mission to another and has no need for manual control. App.
Br. 12-13. This argument fails to address the rationale provided by the
Examiner, namely, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it desirable to have the Rios system determine and execute an ACG
route in autonomous mode in response to a contingency such as a loss of
communication between the ground control station and the UAV. See
Ans. 5.
Second, Appellants attack the rationale for the proposed modification
by asserting that the Examiner’s reason of “changing a mission plan” does
not support a prima facie case of obviousness “because the claimed
invention recites that a user control module can control a plurality of UAV
control surfaces” and the “gap between changing a mission plan and
controlling UAV control surfaces is too large to support a prima facie case
of obviousness using the Rios and Nichols references.” App. Br. 14; see
also Reply Br. 2. We are unpersuaded by this argument because Appellants
mischaracterize the rejection as resulting in a UAV that operates in three
modes: Rios’s manual mode of operation, Nichols’s autonomous mode, and
Nichols’s altered route in autonomous mode. Reply Br. 2. Contrary to
Appellants’ assertion, the proposed modification uses two modes: 1) a
manual mode as disclosed by Rios, and 2) in the event of a contingency,
such as loss of communication between the ground control station and the
UAV, the system switches to operate the UAV in a second, autonomous
mode along the ACG generated route as disclosed by Nichols. See Ans. 3-5,
8-10.
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rationale, which relies on
the UAV losing communication with the ground control station, is faulty
because claim 1 calls for a user control module coupled to the ground
Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
6
control station that allows operation in an autonomous mode or a manual
mode. Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1. Claim 1 calls for the user control module to “allow
operation” of the UAV in autonomous mode, and in contrast, to “implement
user control” in a manual mode. In autonomous mode, control of
Appellants’ UAV is performed by on board flight management system 170,
not by the user control module. Spec. 4, para. [0019]; 11, para. [0039];
passim. Giving claim 1 the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 calls
for the user control module to permit operation of the UAV in autonomous
mode. Appellants have failed to explain how the user control module of the
proposed combination does not permit operation in an autonomous mode.
We conclude the rationale provided by the Examiner is reasonable.
Nichols discloses that UAV flight operations involve contingencies (critical
flight failures that necessitate quick corrective action), and that an ACG can
determine a vehicle route that permits the UAV to return to an airfield and
land safely in the event of a contingency. Nichols 1, paras. [0001] – [0005].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Nichols’s
technique of operating the UAV to execute an ACG generated, autonomous
route for the safe return of a UAV to an airfield in response to a contingency
(e.g., loss of communication between the ground station and the UAV) could
be used to improve Rios’s device in the same way. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Appellants
have not asserted or shown that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Rios’s system is beyond the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
7
Appellants argue that even if combinable, the proposed combination
of Rios and Nichols does not reach the subject matter of claim 1 because
neither Rios nor Nichols discloses switching from an autonomous to a
manual mode. App. Br. 13. The Examiner did not find that either Rios or
Nichols individually discloses the limitation of switching between a manual
and an autonomous mode, but rather the Examiner concluded that such
modification would have been part of combining Rios’s manual mode with
Nichols’s autonomous mode. The proposed modification does not bodily
incorporate Nichols’s autonomous mode into Rios device. Instead,
Nichols’s technique of providing for in flight contingencies through
inclusion of an ACG in the UAV is applied to Rios’s system. Given that
Appellants have not asserted or shown that the Examiner’s proposed
modification of Rios’s system is beyond the skill of a person having
ordinary skill in the art, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument.
We find the Examiner’s proposed combination to be based on a
rational underpinning and to render obvious the claimed subject matter.
Appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings
or reasoning. As such, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 4-8, 11-
14, 16-18, and 20 fall with claim 1.
Rejection of claims 3, 9, 10, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rios, Nichols, and Hopkins
Appellants argue claims 3, 9, 10, 15, and 19 as a group. App. Br. 14.
We select claim 3 as the representative claim, and claims 9, 10, 15, and 19
stand or fall with claim 3. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1, and adds the limitation
that the control surfaces include a rudder, an elevator, an aileron, and a
throttle.
Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
8
The rejection of claim 3 is based upon the same combination of Rios
and Nichols used for independent claim 1, with a further modification as
taught by Hopkins to control the UAV rudder, elevator, aileron, and throttle.
Ans. 6-7. Appellants repeat the arguments used against the rejection of
claim 1. We find no distinction regarding claim 3 warranting a deviation
from our analysis of the rejection of claim 1, supra.
We affirm the rejection of claim 3. Claims 9, 10, 15, and 19 fall with
claim 3.
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of independent claim 1 is based upon a sufficient reason
with a rational underpinning to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have modified Rios’s system for manual operation of a UAV to
include Nichols’s technique of operating a UAV in autonomous mode in
response to a contingency.
The proposed combination of Rios and Nichols would have led a
person of ordinary skill in the art to the subject matter of independent
claim 1.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nlk
Appeal 2009-008546
Application 11/403,472
9

HONEYWELL/SLW
Patent Services
101 Columbia Road
P.O. Box 2245
Morristown NJ 07962-2245