Ex Parte Tazartes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 18, 2012

11124724 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

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.
11/124,724 05/09/2005 Daniel A. Tazartes NGC-170/000645-199 1460
32205 7590 01/19/2012
Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC
One N. LaSalle Street
44th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
MAWARI, REDHWAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/19/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DANIEL A. TAZARTES, CHARLES H. VOLK,
JAMES R. HUDDLE, JEROME S. LIPMAN, and
MAUREEN LIPMA
____________

Appeal 2010-003617
Application 11/124,724
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003617
Application 11/124,724

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, and 8-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buchler (WO 02/35183; pub. May 2, 2002) in view of
Nishiyama (US 6,850,826 B1; iss. Feb. 1, 2005), and further in view of Lin
(US 2002/0120400 A1; iss. Aug. 29, 2002) and Banbrook (US 5,640,325;
iss. June 17, 1997). Claims 5 and 7 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
The claims relate to a navigation component. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a master navigation component that establishes a first
coordinate system; and
one or more slave navigation components that determine
navigation measurement data of the one or more slave
navigation components each in their own secondary
coordinate system;
wherein the one or more slave navigation components
provide the navigation measurement data of the one or more
slave components each in their own secondary coordinate
system to the master navigation component;
wherein the master navigation component compares the
navigation measurement data of the one or more slave
components each in their own secondary coordinate system
to navigation measurement data for the master navigation
component in the first coordinate system;
wherein the master navigation component translates the
navigation measurement data of the one or more slave
navigation components in the second coordinate system into
Appeal 2010-003617
Application 11/124,724

3
navigation measurement data of the one or more slave
navigation components in the first coordinate system;
wherein the master navigation component is disposed at a
first location in a vehicle and a first one of the slave
navigation components is disposed at a second location in the
vehicle, the first and second coordinate systems being
associated with the first and second locations, respectively;
a portion of the vehicle between the first location with
the master navigation component and the second location
with the first one of the slave navigation components
defining a corresponding lever arm;
a dynamic location component coupled to the master
navigation component wherein the dynamic location
component provides dynamic information during bending of
the lever arm between the first and second locations due to
bending of said portion of the vehicle, the displacement
between the first slave navigation component and the master
navigation component being variable due to physical
deflection of the second location relative to the first location,
the master navigation component estimating the error in the
navigation measurement data of the first slave navigation
component at the second location based on the dynamic
displacement information during bending of the lever arm
due to bending of the vehicle;
the master navigation component correcting the
navigation measurement data of the first one of the slave
navigation components based on the estimated errors due to
bending of the portion of the vehicle defining the lever arm.

ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is:
Does Buchler teach away from a dynamic location component that
provides dynamic information during bending of the lever arm between the
first and second locations due to bending of said portion of the vehicle as
called for in claim 1?
Appeal 2010-003617
Application 11/124,724

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-21 based on Buchler, Nishiyama, Lin, and Banbrook
The Examiner found that Buchler discloses a master navigation
component as recited in claim 1 with a dynamic location component that
provides dynamic information during bending of a lever arm between first
and second locations due to bending of a portion of a vehicle. Ans. 6-7
(citing Buchler, paras. [0027, 0063]), 31-32. The Examiner also found that
Lin provides dynamic information during the bending of a lever arm due to
bending of a vehicle. Ans. 7-9. The Examiner further found that Banbrook
determines dynamic changes between a master navigation system and slave
navigation system defining a lever arm and corrects navigation measurement
data of the slave navigation components based on the estimated errors due to
bending of the portion of the vehicle defining the lever arm. Ans. 9, 32-34.
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to a person skilled in
the art to combine Buchler with Lin or Banbrook to correct any errors in the
data provided by the slave system and improve the overall accuracy of the
system and data generated by the slave and master systems. Ans. 9, 34, 36.
Appellants argue claims 1-4, 6, and 8-21 as a group. App. Br. 7.1 We
select claim 1 as a representative claim of the group. Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-
21 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants
argue that Buchler does not provide dynamic location information during
bending of a lever arm, but instead takes measurements for adjusting the
boresight of a rocket slave sensor 28 to a pod/reference frame sensor 26 only

1 Appellants state that independent claim 1 and claims 3-4, 6, and 8-21 will
stand or fall together (App. Br. 7), but Appellants also state that claims 1-4,
6, and 8-31 are pending (App. Br. 2) and do not present separate argument
for the patentability of claim 2, which depends from claim 1.
Appeal 2010-003617
Application 11/124,724

5
after motion of the rocket pod has been damped and bending or deformation
has ceased. App. Br. 7-9 (citing Buchler, para. [0062]). Appellants also
argue that Buchler’s boresight error calculations are intentionally not made
during the time of ongoing displacement (bending) due to the firing of a
rocket and therefore Buchler teaches away from the claimed invention in this
material respect. App. Br. 9; see Reply Br. 2-4. Appellants further argue
that because Buchler teaches that boresight adjustments are not to be made
during ongoing dynamic physical changes of a structure, a person skilled in
the art would not combine Buchler’s teachings with another reference that
teaches dynamic boresight adjustment because such a modification would
change the principle of operation of Buchler. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner’s finding that Buchler discloses a dynamic location
component as recited in claim 1 is supported by a preponderance of evidence
and Appellants have not pointed out any error in that finding. The Examiner
found that Buchler corrects the slave velocity using a measured velocity of
the slave system IMU and the known change in position of the slave system
body IMU in the NAV frame using lever arms of the IMU position and pivot
points. Ans. 7 (citing Buchler, para. [0063]; 32 (same)). This feature is a
second aspect of Buchler’s invention. See Buchler, para. [0063].
In view of this unrefuted finding, Appellants’ arguments that Buchler
teaches away from use of a dynamic location component are not persuasive.
Buchler provides dynamic boresight correction because the rocket pod is
mounted on a rotationally mobile platform, such as a gimbaled launcher. As
a result, the slave system on a rocket may experience a non-zero velocity in
the NAV frame even though the vehicle on which the rocket pod is mounted
remains stationary. Buchler, p. 15, para. [0063]. Buchler measures this non-
Appeal 2010-003617
Application 11/124,724

6
zero velocity from rotational motion of the launcher pods 22, 24 to provide
pseudo zero velocity updates that are added to the standard zero velocity
updating scheme. Id.
To teach away, a reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage pursuit of claimed subject matter. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellants have not pointed to any disclosure in Buchler that criticizes,
discredits or discourages use of a dynamic location component. Even if
Buchler discloses only static location components, as Appellants assert, such
disclosure, by itself, would not teach away from using dynamic location
components. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (just because references do not discuss a
claimed solution does not provide a basis for concluding they teach away
from the claimed solution). Here, however, the Examiner found that
Buchler discloses a dynamic location component and Appellants have not
shown error in that finding, which also undercuts Appellants’ argument that
the principle of operation of Buchler is incompatible with a dynamic
location component. The Examiner also found that Lin and Banbrook
disclose dynamic location components and determined that the use of these
components on Buchler would improve the accuracy of Buchler’s system.
Appellants have not shown error in these findings or the Examiner’s
obviousness determination. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-4, 6, and 8-21, which fall with claim 1.
Claims 22-26 based on Buchler, Nishiyama, Lin, and Banbrook
Independent claim 22 recites a method for determining navigation
information including the step of “determining dynamic information for
Appeal 2010-003617
Application 11/124,724

7
displacement changes between the first and second locations during physical
deflection of the lever arm due to bending of the portion of the vehicle.”
Appellants argue claims 22-31 as a group. App. Br. 7, 10. We select claim
22 as the representative claim. Claims 23-31 stand or fall with claim 22.
The Examiner found that Buchler, Nishiyama, Lin, and Banbrook
disclose the limitations of claim 22 including a dynamic location component
that determines dynamic location information for displacement changes
between the first and second locations during physical deflection of the lever
arm between slave and master navigation components for the reasons set
forth for claim 12. Ans. 27-28 (citing Buchler, para. [0063]). The Examiner
made similar findings for claim 12 and claim 1. See Ans. 4-9 and 16-23.
Appellants argue that claim 22 recites limitations that are substantially
similar to those recited in claim 1 for the use of dynamic information during
bending of the vehicle and Appellants incorporate those arguments presented
for claim 1, for claim 22. App. Br. 10. For the reasons discussed above for
claim 1, Appellants’ arguments for claim 22 are not persuasive. As such, we
sustain the rejection of claim 22 and claims 23-31, which fall with claim 22.
CONCLUSION
Buchler does not teach away from a dynamic location component that
provides dynamic information during bending of the lever arm between the
first and second locations due to bending of said portion of the vehicle as
called for in claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, and 8-31 as being
unpatentable over Buchler in view of Nishiyama, and further in view of Lin
and Banbrook is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2010-003617
Application 11/124,724

8
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).

AFFIRMED

mls