Ex Parte Vasek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

13764701 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
13/764,701 02/11/2013 Jiri Vasek H0036112-5447/1121-534US1 2553
89941 7590 08/01/2017
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
KINGSTON, SHAWNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIRI VASEK, RATAN KHATWA, JAMES C. KIRK,
OLUKAYODE OLOFINBOBA, PAVEL KOLCAREK,
TOMAS SVOBODA, and MATEJ DUSIK
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
Technology Center 2600
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
CLAIMED INVENTION
The present patent application “provides systems and methods for
aiding in pilot awareness of obstacles relative to aircraft wingtips.”
Specification 13, filed February 11, 2013 (“Spec.”). Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive sensor information from one or more sensors
mounted in at least one of a wingtip light module, fuselage,
engine cowling, landing gear or tail component of an aircraft,
wherein each of the one or more sensors has a field of view that
is selected based on a stopping distance range of the aircraft,
determine a braking distance for the aircraft based on a
weight and a current speed of the aircraft,
detect at least one obstacle based on the received sensor
information and the determined aircraft braking distance, and
generate an image comprising:
an ownship icon comprising at least one feature
representing the at least one wingtip light module,
fuselage, engine cowling, landing gear, or tail component
of the aircraft, and
at least one indicator associated with the detected at
least one obstacle; and
a display device configured to present the generated image.
Appeal Brief 23, filed March 22, 2016 (“App. Br.”).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Butler et al. (WO 2006/027762 Al; published Mar. 16,
2
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
2006) (“Butler”) and Pepitone (US 2007/0067093 Al; published Mar. 22,
2007) . Final Office Action 2—10, mailed July 29, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner errs. Except
for the rejection of claims 11 and 12, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions set forth in the appealed action and the Examiner’s
Answer to the extent consistent with our analysis. Appellants have waived
arguments Appellants failed to timely raise or properly develop. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2).
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14
Claim 1 recites in relevant part “a processor configured to: receive
sensor information from one or more sensors mounted in ... an aircraft,
wherein each of the one or more sensors has a field of view that is selected
based on a stopping distance range of the aircraft.” Appellants contend the
Examiner erred in finding Pepitone discloses or suggests the recited
“sensors.” See App. Br. 7; Reply Brief 2—5, filed Dec. 5, 2016 (“Reply
Br.”). Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown Pepitone’s sensors
have a field of view, much less “a field of view that is selected based on a
stopping distance range of the aircraft” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 3—5.
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. Claim 1 does not recite
a system that includes sensors. Instead, claim 1 recites a system comprising
two components: “a processor configured to” perform certain functions and
3
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
“a display device.” App. Br. 23. Although one of the functions the
processor is “configured to” perform is receiving “sensor information from
one or more sensors . . . wherein each of the one or more sensors has a field
of view selected based on a stopping distance range of the aircraft,” claim 1
does not include the “one or more sensors” as an element of the claimed
system. See id. Thus, as long as the cited prior art teaches or suggests “a
processor configured to” receive the recited sensor information, the prior art
meets the claim limitation.
The Examiner correctly finds Pepitone discloses such a processor.
The Examiner finds Pepitone discloses a processor that receives information
from sensors mounted on a plane. See Final Act. 4 (citing Pepitone H 19—
20, 38); see also Pepitone Figs. 1—2 (depicting a processor coupled to
various sensors), 120 (“The processor 104 is coupled to receive various
types of data from ... the sensors 110__ (emphases omitted)). Appellants
do not persuasively challenge this finding. We see no reason why a
processor capable of receiving information from these sensors would be
unable to receive information from sensors whose fields of view have been
“selected based on a stopping distance range of the aircraft.”
In any event, Pepitone suggests “wherein each of the one or more
sensors has a field of view that is selected based on a stopping distance
range of the aircraft.” Pepitone discloses employing a “plurality of sensors
. . . capable of providing several of the described inputs, such as aircraft
speed, position, and altitude.” Pepitone 119. Pepitone discloses the sensors
“may include inertial sensors or a GPS,” Pepitone 119, but does not limit
the disclosed sensors to these two examples. Pepitone explicitly discloses
“it should be appreciated that a vast number of variations exist. It should
4
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
also be appreciated that these preferred exemplary embodiments are only
examples and are not intended to limit the scope, applicability, or
configuration of the invention in any way.” Pepitone 146. The cited prior
art discloses that other sensor types were well known to those ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention. See, e.g., Butler 9:30—35 (describing
optical sensors mounted on a plane’s landing gear and nose cone).
Pepitone suggests using inputs received from these sensors, among
other inputs, to generate an “early warning distance,” that is, a distance that
provides a plane’s crew enough time to avoid colliding with an obstacle.
See, e.g., Pepitone 135 (“The early warning distance ‘x’ is a distance
dependent upon the time and distance according to received aircraft data
that would provide sufficient time and distance for the [flight] crew to react
to an impending incursion.” (emphasis added)); see also Pepitone Fig. 3
(showing an early warning distance). This suggests using sensors that can
detect an obstacle early enough for the crew to stop the plane before it hits
the obstacle. As one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, this
involves either selecting sensors with fields of view that exceed the stopping
distance range of the plane or selecting each sensor’s field view so that each
field of view exceeds this range. Otherwise, the sensors may detect
obstacles too late for the crew to avoid them. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (explaining that an obviousness analysis “can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that an obviousness analysis
“may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to
the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any
5
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
reference or expert opinion”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Pepitone suggests “wherein each of the one or more sensors has a field of
view that is selected based on a stopping distance range of the aircraft.”
Appellants further argue the Examiner failed to establish Pepitone
discloses or suggests a “processor configured to . . . determine a braking
distance for the aircraft based on a weight and a current speed of the
aircraft” as further recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert the
Examiner has not shown Pepitone’s disclosure of data received from inertial
sensors includes the “weight of an aircraft for which speed is being
considered.” App. Br. 8.
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. The Examiner finds
Pepitone suggests the disputed limitation by disclosing a processor that
generates “advisory indicia” (that is, audio or visual warnings) about
approaching planes. See Final Act. 4 (citing Pepitone H 25, 38); Pepitone
1137, 38, 40. Pepitone discloses that a processor uses “[d]ata such as rate of
speed, direction, and braking distance ... to determine the amount of time
for [the] aircraft to reach or cross the border of the zone of protection [of
another aircraft] from its current position” and, in response, display advisory
indicia if necessary. Pepitone 138 (emphasis added; reference numbers
omitted). The Examiner explains
[i]t is known to those [of] ordinary skill in the art that ‘braking
distance’ for a moving object varies based upon speed and weight
of the object. It is therefore understood that in order for a
processor to use braking distance to determine border
encroachment for a moving object, it must determine ... a
braking distance based upon the current speed of the object and
the weight of the object. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, it is implied from Pepitone’s disclosure that if braking
distance is being used by the processor to determine the amount
6
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
of time for the moving aircraft to reach the border, it is dependent
upon inputs of the current speed and size [i.e., weight] of the
aircraft.
Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner. One of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that a plane’s braking distance is based on, among other things,
the plane’s speed and weight. See, e.g., US Patent 8,103,438 18:54—57
(issued Jan. 24, 2012) (“It is noted that the estimated braking distance for
vehicles . . . may [be] based upon a variety of factors such as break wear,
speed, weight, traction, etc.[,] which may be recorded by [the] system.”
(emphasis added)).1 And Pepitone suggests that the disclosed system
includes the weight information necessary to calculate the recited braking
distance. For example, Pepitone discloses that the system includes a
database containing “aircraft structural dimensions for ownship and other
aircraft. These dimensions are public data available from the [Federal
Aviation Administration] type certification office.” Pepitone 125. Federal
Aviation Administration regulations indicate that this public data includes a
plane’s weight. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 23 (explaining that to obtain a type
certificate for a particular aircraft an applicant must prepare an Airplane
Flight Manual that includes the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft),
23.1583 (stating that The Airplane Flight Manual must contain operating
1 See also US Patent 7,872,591 1 32 (issued Jan. 18, 2011) (“In other
embodiments, the threshold . . . also depends upon an estimated braking
distance for the train, which in turn depends on the speed of the train, the
weight of the train . . . .” (emphasis added)); US Patent 7,778,776 1 102
(issued Aug. 17, 2010) (“It is noted that the braking distance is of a value
that depends on weight or velocity of the mobile apparatus.” (emphasis
added)).
7
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
limitations including the maximum weight and the maximum zero wing fuel
weight of the aircraft).2 Because Pepitone’s system uses braking distance to
generate advisory indicia and contains the weight data necessary to generate
the braking distance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
Pepitone to imply or suggest using the weight information to calculate the
braking distance. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1329;
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that the relevant prior art
includes basic principles unlikely to be restated in the cited references). At
the very least, given that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known
that a plane’s braking distance is based upon the plane’s weight, it would
have been obvious to calculate a plane’s braking distance using the plane’s
weight. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (2007).
For the reasons stated above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and the rejections of
independent claims 13 and dependent claims 2 and 14, which Appellants did
not argue separately beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1. See App.
Br. 5-9, 17-18; Reply Br. 2-6.
Claims 3 and 15
Appellants argue “the Examiner failed to establish that FIGS. 2 and 5—
14 of Butler illustrate sensed coverage areas and ownship icons ‘in one of at
least two different range resolutions,’ as recited in claim 3.” App. Br. 9.
2 See also 14 C.F.R. §§ 21.81, 21.83, 21.85, 23.23(a), 23.25, 23.39, 23.343,
23.1501(b), 23.1519, 23.1583.
8
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
Appellants assert “the Examiner has not shown that Butler describes two
different range resolutions or any reasons for displaying sensed coverage
areas and ownship icons in one of at least two different range resolutions.”
App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, “FIG. 5 of Butler . . . depicts a single
range resolution, not ‘at least two different range resolutions,’ as recited in
claim 3.” Reply Br. 6.
We find these conclusory arguments unpersuasive because they do not
adequately explain why Figure 5 of Butler only depicts a single range
resolution, as opposed to at least two different range resolutions. Cf. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(explaining an appellant must advance substantive arguments beyond mere
recitation of the claim elements and naked assertions that the corresponding
elements are not found in the prior art).
In any event, we agree with the Examiner that Butler’s Figure 5 at
least suggests this feature. Figure 5 depicts a view of an aircraft (“ownship
icon”) and a plurality of warning zones (“coverage areas”) presented in
direct relation to the aircraft (“one to one relationship”). See Final Act. 5
(citing Butler Figs. 2, 5—14); Ans. 6—7; see also Butler 7:25, 10:32—11:4.
This figure at least suggests “at least two different range resolutions”
because the density of dots shading the warning zones decreases as the
distance from the aircraft increases, which suggests the resolution changes
from zone to zone. See Butler Fig. 5. For example, inner warning zone 20
is shaded with a greater density of dots (higher range resolution) than outer
warning zone 21 (lower range resolution), which in turn has a greater density
of dots than the zone outside its border (lowest range resolution). Butler Fig.
5.
9
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, which
includes similar limitations and was not argued separately beyond the
arguments advanced for claims 1 and 3. See App. Br. 18—19.
Claims 4 and 16
Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown Butler teaches or
suggests “wherein the at least one indicator comprises a range feature of at
least one of the coverage areas, wherein the range feature corresponds to
obstacle distance information” as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 10; see Reply
Br. 7—9. Appellants assert “FIGS. 2 and 5—14 of Butler, cited by the
Examiner . . . fail to disclose or suggest a range feature of a sensed coverage
area, much less a range feature that corresponds to obstacle distance
information.” App. Br. 10. Appellants further assert “Butler does not
mention an obstacle, much less disclose or suggest ‘an image comprising:
. . . at least one indicator associated with the detected at least one obstacle,”
as recited in parent claim 1. Reply Br. 8—9.
We agree with the Examiner that Butler’s Figure 7 teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation. See Ans. 7—8 (citing Butler Figs. 5—7); Final Act. 6
(citing Butler Figs. 2, 5—14). Butler’s Figure 7 shows an arrow extending
from the nose of an image of aircraft 1 to the edge of hard warning boundary
25, which indicates the distance (dimension F) from the nose of aircraft 1 to
hard warning boundary 25. See Final Act. 6 (citing Butler Figs. 2, 5—14);
see also Butler 11:6—20 (noting that “various dimensions in relation to the
warning zones are illustrated by the letters F, W, C, and P”). Figure 7
further depicts a straight line extending from the edge of hard warning
10
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
boundary 25 to the tail of an image of aircraft 1(b) (“obstacle”), which
indicates the distance from the edge of hard warning boundary 25 to the tail
of an image of aircraft 1(b). Butler Fig. 7. Collectively, this arrow and line,
starting at the nose of aircraft 1 and ending at the tail of aircraft 1(b),
indicate the distance between aircraft 1 and aircraft 1(b), which at least
suggests the claimed “at least one indicator compris[ing] a range feature . . .
correspond[ing] to obstacle distance information.” See Butler Fig. 7. We
note Appellants do not dispute the lines displayed in Figure 7 are (or at least
can be) displayed in Butler’s display.
Moreover, Butler’s Figure 7 teaches or at least suggests the disputed
limitation because the mere display of an aircraft a discernible distance away
from an obstacle is an indicator of a certain range or distance existing
between the two objects. Butler Fig. 7; accord Butler Fig. 5 (showing
display of aircraft in relation to obstacles 27 and 28), Fig. 32 (showing
cockpit display of aircraft in relation to an obstacle represented by a
rectangle with a diagonal checkered pattern).
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 4. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, which
includes similar limitations and was not argued separately with particularity
beyond the arguments advanced for claims 1 and 4. See App. Br. 19.
Claims 5 and 17
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Butler discloses
“the at least one indicator comprises a distance value located in at least one
of the coverage areas,” as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 9—
10. Appellants argue “the Examiner has not shown that a person of ordinary
11
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
skill in the art would have understood that ‘processing means for
determining dimensions and locations of obstacles’ necessarily requires a
display of a distance value.” Reply Br. 10.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Butler and Pepitone renders the disputed
limitation obvious. See Final Act. 6 (citing Butler 4:28—33); Ans. 7—8. As
the Examiner finds, Butler discloses “processing means” that “determin[e]
the dimensions and locations relative to the aircraft of all objects likely to
cause a collision.” Butler 6:28—32; see also Butler 4:20-23 (discussing the
processing means); Ans. 8 (citing Butler 4). Butler also discloses displaying
that aircraft and objects that fall within various warning zones. See Butler
10:33—11:4 (discussing the display shown in Figure 5), Fig. 5. Given that
Butler’s processing means determines the dimensions and locations of
nearby obstacles, calculating the distance value between an airplane and
these obstacles would have been well within inferences and creative steps a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
And displaying such a distance value on Butler’s cockpit display would
involve nothing more than the application of a known technique to a known
element to achieve a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Displaying the distance value in at least one of the coverage areas, such as
near the image of the obstacle at issue or between the image of the aircraft
and the image of the obstacle, is a logical, common sense solution to the
problem of making the displayed distance information easily discernible to
pilots. See Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1329. This is particularly true in light
of Appellants’ failure to provide any persuasive evidence or argument that
the above modifications would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one
12
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Further, Pepitone evidences that displaying general flight-related data,
including data associated with flight hazards, in various sections of a display
area, was well-known in the art. Pepitone 130 (“It will be appreciated that
general flight-related data may include various types of data associated with
various types of flight hazards.” (reference number omitted)). Because the
recited “distance values” were a well-known type of “general flight related
data,”3 it would have been obvious to display these values to provide pilot’s
a sense of the distances between aircrafts. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 5. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, which
includes similar limitations and was not argued separately beyond the
arguments advanced for claims 1 and 5. See App. Br. 19-20.
Claims 6 and 18
Appellants argue
even if Butler describes scanning and storing ‘physical
dimensions of [a] hanger or stand, ’. . . Butler has not been shown
to have described generating an image that is presented by a
display device, wherein the image comprises ‘a partial outline []
of at least one determined obstacle based on at least one of the
3 See, e.g., US Patent 6,433,729 6:33—63 (disclosing that indicia shown on a
display have associated numbers that represent the relative altitude
differences between aircrafts), Fig. 2 (showing a prior art display that
includes altitude differences between the host aircraft and other aircraft).
13
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
received sensor information or the stored airport facility
information,’ as recited in claim 6.
App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants further argue “[t]he Examiner
has not shown that Butler describes . . . presenting the partial outline within
a sensed coverage [a]rea.” App. Br. 13.
We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner finds Butler’s processing
means scans, maps, and stores the dimensions and locations of various
obstacles, including hangers and stands. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Butler 14:9—
15); see also Butler 14:1—8 (discussing a processing means used to actively
determine warning alert zones and warning situations by, for example,
scanning surrounding area to determine the dimensions and location relative
to the aircraft of all adjacent objects). Butler’s further discloses displaying
these obstacles to the pilot in the cockpit. Final Act. 3 (citing Butler’s
Figure 5 for “obstacle shown in figure”); see also Butler 10:32—11:4
(“carrying out the alert for the pilot... by way of a display, as illustrated in
Fig. 5”), 15:34—16:1 (“a picture of the aircraft and specific warning zones
may optionally be displayed in the cockpit”); Butler Fig. 32 (showing a
cockpit display for stand maneuvering alert warning zones, including an
obstacle in the form of a rectangle with diagonal checkered rectangle).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Butler shows obstacles 27 and 28 as an
“image” including “at least a partial outline.” Butler Fig. 5 (items 27, 28),
see also Butler Fig. 7, items 1(a), 1(b) (displaying aircrafts 1(a) and 1(b),
which are potential obstacles for aircraft 1), Fig. 32. Accordingly, based on
these cited disclosures of Butler, we agree with the Examiner that Butler
teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation.
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 6. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18, which
14
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
includes similar limitations and was not argued separately with particularity
beyond the arguments advanced for claims 1 and 6. See App. Br. 20.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 19
Claim 7 recites
a first zone associated with first areas outside the aircraft
. . . where, if an obstacle was detected therein, the aircraft would
avoid contact based on current heading of the aircraft; and
a second zone associated with a second area outside the
aircraft. . . where, if an obstacle was detected therein, the aircraft
would be likely to collide with the obstacle based on current
heading of the aircraft.
App. Br. 25. Appellants assert “based on the depiction of Butler’s protection
zones 20, 21, and 22, which each surround the aircraft, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that for any given aircraft heading, the
aircraft would pass through each of the zones 20, 21, 22.” App. Br. 14
(emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 10—11. Thus, Appellants argue “a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood any of the zones 20,
21, 22 to have included both the first and second zones recited in
Appellant’s claim 7.” App. Br. 14; see Reply Br. 11. Appellants explain
“[t]o collide with obstacle 28, the aircraft in FIG. 5 of Butler will pass
through both of zones 20 and 21 ... . Therefore, neither of Butler’s zones
20, 21 is an area that ‘the aircraft would avoid contact based on current
heading of the aircraft ....’” Reply Br. 11.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because the arguments
are not commensurate with the scope of claim 7. Claim 7 does not require
the current heading of the aircraft to pass through the all of the first or
second zones. Nor does claim 7 require the obstacle in the first zone to be
15
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
the same as the obstacle in the second zone. The prior art satisfies the claim
limitation if the art teaches or suggests that a current heading of an aircraft
would avoid contact with a first obstacle detected in the first zone and would
collide with a second obstacle detected in the second zone.
Under this understanding of the claim, we agree with the Examiner
that Figure 5 of Butler teaches the recited “first zone” and “second zone.”
Final Act. 7 (citing Butler 10:17—33, 11:4, Figs. 5—7). Figure 5 shows an
aircraft and zones 20 and 21, with obstacle 27 located in zone 20 and
obstacle 28 located in zone 21. See Butler Fig. 5. As the aircraft moves
forward in a straight line (“the current heading”), the aircraft would pass
through zone 20 (“a first zone”) yet would avoid contact with obstacle 27,
which is positioned in a portion of zone 20 outside the path of the aircraft.
When the aircraft then passes through zone 21 (“a second zone”), however,
the aircraft would collide with obstacle 28, which is positioned in a portion
of zone 21 directly in the path of the aircraft.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 10, and 19, which include
similar limitations and were not argued separately with particularity beyond
the arguments advanced for claims 1 and 7. See App. Br. 13—15, 20-21;
Reply Br. 10—11.
Claims 9 and 20
Appellants assert “the Examiner did not specify what portions in
FIGS. 5—7 [of Butler] purportedly show obstacles in a ‘nearest obstacle
format’ and what portions purportedly show obstacles in a ‘next nearest
obstacle format’” as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 15. Thus, Appellants argue
16
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
“the Examiner failed to meet the burden of establishing that Butler describes
the nearest obstacle icon and next-nearest obstacle icon recited in claim 9.”
App. Br. 15. Appellants further argue none of Figures 5—7 of Butler
discloses or suggests “distinguishing among obstacles using a nearest or
next-nearest designation” or “presenting obstacles in more than one format,
as recited by claim 9.” App. Br. 15. In particular, Appellants explain that
Figure 5 of Butler illustrates objects 27 and 28 not in different formats, but
rather in the same format, i.e., a rectangle with a checkered pattern. Reply
Br. 12.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive and agree with the
Examiner that Figure 5 of Butler teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. Ans. 11 (citing Butler Fig. 5); see Final Act. 8 (citing Butler
Figs. 5—7). As the Examiner finds, Figure 5 of Butler shows obstacle 27
(“nearest obstacle icon”) in a first format—by itself and not within a
highlighted path of the aircraft—and obstacle 28 (“next-nearest obstacle
icon”) in a second format—within a highlighted path of the aircraft. Ans. 11
(citing Butler Fig. 5). Further, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the
formats of obstacles 27 and 28 in Figure 5 of Butler are different because
obstacle 27 has a rectangle with a diagonal checkered pattern, while obstacle
28 has a rectangle with a horizontal and vertical checkered pattern. See
Butler Fig. 5.
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 9. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20, which
includes similar limitations and was not argued separately with particularity
beyond the arguments advanced for claims 1 and 9. See App. Br. 21.
17
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
Claims 11 and 12
Claim 11 recites the following:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine
trajectory of at least one aircraft element based on a location of
the at least one aircraft element and current aircraft speed and
heading, wherein the generated image comprises:
a first vector generated based on the determined trajectory
of the associated aircraft element; and
a second vector generated based on the determined
trajectory of the associated aircraft element,
wherein the vectors are based on at least one of a distance
or time value.
App. Br. 26. Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding that Butler’s
Figure 4 and its associated disclosure teach or suggest these limitations.
According to Appellants, “[t]he cited portion of Butler merely discloses that
a height and position of an object may be identified, without any reference to
the trajectory of an aircraft element” and Butler fails suggest generating an
image with the claimed vectors. App. Br. 16 (emphases omitted); see also
Reply Br. 12—14.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner finds
Butler’s Figure 4 teaches the claimed trajectory because the figure depicts
“an obstacle such as an aircraft element where a trajectory is determined
based on location and heading and also one based on distance.” Ans. 12.
But Butler’s Figure 4 merely shows how “backscattered light is collected by
the sensors . . . which will allow the height and position of the object 15 to
be identified” Butler 10:13—15; see also id. Fig. 4. This depiction of how
sensors capture backscattered light does not teach or suggest a processor
configured to determine a trajectory.
18
Appeal 2017-002592
Application 13/764,701
Even assuming this disclosure does suggest a processor configured to
determine a trajectory, the Examiner has not established Butler teaches or
suggests a processor configured to generate an image with first and second
vectors. The Examiner finds Butler suggests the recited vectors because
Butler teaches different ways of processing display data and operating in
various modes, and Butler’s Figure 4 allegedly shows trajectories. See Final
Act. 9; Ans. 12 (citing Butler 12). But a trajectory (a heading) is not the
same as a vector (a quantity with magnitude and direction). Moreover, the
cited portion of Butler discloses using “different alert zones and alert
signals” based on a particular operation mode and that “processing will
include determining which particular operation is being carried out and then
the pilot. . . will be able to change the system between the various modes.”
Butler 12:12—17. Neither disclosure suggests the disputed limitation.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12,
which depends from claim 11 and includes the same deficiencies. See Final
Act. 9; Ans. 11—12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1—10 and 13—
20.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 11 and 12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
19