Ex Parte Stulken et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 2017

14456471 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 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.
14/456,471 08/11/2014 David Eugene STULKEN 13-0903 (BOCO/0012US) 2373
120226 7590 10/19/2017
Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
EUSTAQUIO, CAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2017 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):
PAIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PatentAdmin@boeing.com
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID EUGENE STULKEN and
PETER JAMES BATSAKES
Appeal 2017-002673
Application 14/456,4711
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—23, which are all claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing
Company. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002673
Application 14/456,471
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
providing weather and/or atmospheric data. Spec. 11.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added to dispositive limitation):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving weather data for use in a flight of an aircraft;
separating the weather data into weather data layers for
a plurality of ranges of altitude, wherein each weather data
layer corresponds to a respective one of the plurality of ranges
of altitude',
receiving a selection of at least one of the weather data
layers;
preparing for display weather data in the selected at least
one of the weather data layers;
outputting, for display on a display screen in the aircraft,
the weather data in the selected at least one of the weather data
layers;
analyzing the weather data to identify at least one
weather hazard; and
upon determining that the identified at least one weather
hazard is located in a data layer not selected for display,
outputting, for display on the display screen, an indication that
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Aug. 10, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 6, 2016); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 7, 2016); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Mar. 10, 2016); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Aug. 11,2014).
2
Appeal 2017-002673
Application 14/456,471
weather data layers that are not selected for display include at
least one weather hazard.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Duggan et al. ("Duggan") US 2010/0256909 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
Buratto et al. ("Buratto") US 2013/0249712 Al Sept. 26, 2013
Pastor US 2014/0343761 Al Nov. 20, 2014
Rejections on Appeal
R1. Claims 1—4, 6—8, 11—17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Buratto and Pastor.
Final Act. 2.
R2. Claims 5, 9, 10, 18, 19, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Buratto,
Pastor, and Duggan. Final Act. 13
CFAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 10-13), we decide the
appeal of obviousness Rejection R1 of claims 1—4, 6—8, 11—17, and 20 on
the basis of representative claim 1.
We address Rejection R2 of independent claim 21, not separately
argued, infra.
3
Appeal 2017-002673
Application 14/456,471
Remaining dependent claims 5, 9, 10, 18, 19, 22, and 23 in Rejection
R2, not argued separately, stand or fall with the respective independent
claim from which they depend.3
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We agree with particular arguments advanced by Appellants with
respect to claims 1—23 for the specific reasons discussed below. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
1. $103 Rejection R1 of Claims 1—4, 6—8, 11—17, and 20
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 10—13; Reply Br. 2—4) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Buratto and Pastor is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the limitation of "separating
the weather data into weather data layers for a plurality of ranges of altitude,
wherein each weather data layer corresponds to a respective one of the
plurality of ranges of altitude," as recited in claim 1?
3 When Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4
Appeal 2017-002673
Application 14/456,471
Analysis
Appellants contend:
Buratto does not disclose that the weather data received by the
radar scan is separated into weather data layers for a plurality of
ranges of altitude. Furthermore, nothing in Buratto suggests
such a separation of the weather data. All of the weather data
gathered by the weather radar in Buratto is displayed.
Therefore, there is no reason provided by Buratto to separate
the weather data into layers.
App. Br. 11. Further,
Buratto does not suggest only displaying certain weather data
based on precipitation intensity (or any other criteria). Thus,
Buratto does not disclose any need to "separate" the
precipitation data. A better characterization of Buratto is
categorizing the precipitation data such that data within a first
precipitation intensity category is coded with a first color, a
second precipitation intensity category is coded with a second
color, etc. Such categorization data is not the same as separating
received weather data.
App. Br. 12. Moreover, "[separating weather data layers for a plurality of
ranges of altitude is completely different from separating weather data
according to precipitation intensity." Id.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds "[the
representation in Figure 8 of Buratto] is the metrological data which varies
according to precipitation levels, which is displayed in relation to the
aircraft's path 12 according to an altitude determined by the scale 26."
Ans. 4.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue, "[i]n all of the views (top down
views and perspective views [of Buratto]), all of the weather data gathered
by radar is displayed .... Notably, the altitude scale 26 goes all the way to
5
Appeal 2017-002673
Application 14/456,471
the ground . . . [and] altitude scales in . . . [Buratto] Figures 6 and 7 also go
all the way to the ground. There is no suggestion that some portion of the
weather data above or below a particular altitude is being omitted." Reply
Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants' arguments, and we disagree with the
Examiner's finding that Buratto teaches or suggests the recited step of
"separating the weather data into weather data layers for a plurality of ranges
of altitude, wherein each weather data layer corresponds to a respective one
of the plurality of ranges of altitude," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 4—5.
We disagree with the Examiner for essentially the same reasons
argued by Appellants. Ans. 11—13; Reply Br. 3. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and also the rejection of
independent claim 12, which recites the disputed limitation in commensurate
form. For the same reasons, we also reverse Rejection R1 of claims 2-4, 6—
8, 11, 13—17, and 20 that depend therefrom. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. Rejection R2 of Claims 5, 9, 10, 18, 19, and 21—23
We find the dispositive limitation of independent claim 21, i.e.,
"computer-readable program code to separate received weather data into
weather data layers for a plurality of ranges of altitude, wherein each
weather data layer corresponds to a respective one of the plurality of ranges
of altitude," is commensurate in scope to the dispositive limitation of
claim 1, discussed above in connection with Issue 1. The Examiner relies
upon the combined teachings and suggestions of Buratto and Pastor to reject
claim 21 in the same manner used in Rejection R1 of claim 1. The tertiary
6
Appeal 2017-002673
Application 14/456,471
Duggan reference is not relied upon by the Examiner for teaching or
suggesting the dispositive limitation of claim 21, nor has the Duggan
reference been shown, on this record, to overcome the deficiencies of
Buratto and Pastor identified in Issue 1.
Accordingly, in light of Appellants' arguments cited above and our
reversal of Rejection R1 of independent claims 1 and 12, supra, we also
reverse obviousness Rejection R2 under § 103 of claim 21. For the same
reasons, we also reverse obviousness Rejection R2 under § 103 of claims 5,
9, 10, 18, 19, 22, and 23 which variously and ultimately depend from
claims 1, 12, and 21.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R1 and R2
of claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combinations of record, and we do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—23.
REVERSED
7