Ex Parte Vilaplana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13902697 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
13/902,697 05/24/2013 Miguel Angel Vilaplana 09-0853-US-NP2 4507
63759 7590 08/02/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. WILTEY, NICHOLAS K
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIGUEL ANGEL VILAPLANA,
ERNESTO VALLS HERNANDEZ,
FRANCISCO GARCIA DE BLANES, and
ISABEL DEL POZO DE POZA
(Applicant: The Boeing Company)
Appeal 2015-007971
Application 13/902,697
Technology Center 3600
Before: JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and SEAN P. O’HANLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
15 and 20-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-007971
Application 13/902,697
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of detecting and resolving
conflicts between aircraft trajectories. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of managing airspace through which a plurality
of aircraft are flying, comprising:
(I) receiving, from the plurality of aircraft, user
preferred aircraft intent data that unambiguously defines
corresponding user preferred trajectories of each of the plurality
of aircraft;
(II) calling an initial global conflict detection procedure
comprising:
(II)(i) calculating, by a processor, the
corresponding user preferred trajectories from the user
preferred aircraft intent data;
(II)(ii) comparing the corresponding user preferred
trajectories so as to identify one or more conflicts between
trajectories to create a comparison; and
(II)(iii) using the comparison of the corresponding
user preferred trajectories to identify conflicted aircraft
and to place each conflicted aircraft into one of a plurality
of conflict dependent networks such that each conflict
dependent network contains a set of all aircraft in conflict
with each other, either directly or indirectly, such that
each conflicted aircraft can be a member of one conflict
dependent network only,
(III) for each conflict dependent network, calling an
initial conflict resolution procedure comprising:
revising the user preferred aircraft intent data of one
or more of the conflicted aircraft of a corresponding
conflict dependent network to produce revised aircraft
intent data defining a corresponding revised trajectory
configured to remove-conflicts from within the
corresponding conflict dependent network;
(IV) sending the revised aircraft intent data to the
corresponding conflicted aircraft; and
2
Appeal 2015-007971
Application 13/902,697
(V) commanding the corresponding conflicted aircraft
to alter course to remove the conflicts.
Appeal Br. 10-11, 22—23. We have modified the punctuation in claim 1 and
added paragraph numbering for clarity.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koeneman US 2007/0222665 A1 Sept. 27,2007
Felix US 2010/0305781 A1 Dec. 2,2010
Valenzuela, A. and Rivas, D. (2011), Conflict Resolution in
Converging Air Traffic Using Trajectory Patterns, JOURNAL OF
GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS, 34(4), 1172-1189 (herein,
“Valenzuela”)
Hagen, G., Butler, R., and Maddalon, J., Stratway: A Modular
Approach to Strategic Conflict Resolution (herein, “Hagen”)
REJECTIONS
(I) Claims 1, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Valenzuela and Felix.
(II) Claims 2—15 and 21—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Valenzuela, Felix, and Hagen.
(III) Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Valenzuela, Felix, and Koneman.
3
Appeal 2015-007971
Application 13/902,697
OPINION
Rejection (I)
Citing pages 1177—1178 and 1186 of Valenzuela, the Examiner finds
that this reference teaches the steps (II)(iii) and (III) of claim 1 and that Felix
teaches the remaining steps. Final Act. 3—5. The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious “to provide the independent networks as disclosed
by Valenzuela with the conflict detection system as taught by Felix in order
for aircrafts to fly safely through an airspace.” Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that Valenzuela fails to disclose step (II)(iii) of claim
1 because Valenzuela merely groups all aircraft into a single network and
applies a global algorithm to this network of all aircraft. In contrast,
Appellants assert, step (II)(iii) requires a plurality of networks and that these
networks are based on a comparison of user preferred directories. Appeal
Br. 11-16.
In response, the Examiner states:
it is understood that the term global versus regional does not in
fact determine patentability and that if the word global is
interpreted to mean the entire planet, than the issue becomes
political rather than an issue among aircrafts in a region with
conflicting trajectories. Since Valenzuela already discloses a
scenario is defined by a limited region of airspace, and conflict
resolution occurring in this limited region of airspace, it is
understood that the global conflict resolution algorithm is for that
limited region of airspace and that for each plurality of airspaces
that exist, the algorithm would be applied. Therefore multiple
dependent networks are in fact disclosed by the prior art of
Valenzuela.
4
Appeal 2015-007971
Application 13/902,697
Ans. 17 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner finds that Valenzuela applies
a global algorithm, but to a plurality of limited regions of airspace, and,
therefore, Valenzuela discloses a plurality of dependent networks.
In reply, Appellants contend that even if Valenzuela were to address
multiple different areas (regions), in each of the areas, all of the aircraft in
each area would be handled together, and there would be “no assignment of
conflicted aircraft among different areas.” Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants’ on this point. The Examiner has not
shown that the limited regions of airspace of Valenzuela are determined the
same way as the conflict dependent networks are in step (II)(iii) of claim 1.
Specifically, step (II)(iii) requires “comparing the corresponding user
preferred trajectories so as to identity one or more conflicts between
trajectories to create a comparison; and using the comparison of the
corresponding user preferred trajectories ... to place each conflicted aircraft
into one of a plurality of conflict dependent networks.” Appeal Br. 22
(Claims App.). The Examiner has not explained how the limited regions of
airspace of Valenzuela are in any way based upon using the above-noted
comparison. Thus, the Examiner falls short of demonstrating that the limited
regions of airspace of Valenzuela correspond to the plurality of conflict
dependent networks recited in claim 1. Independent claims 20 and 24 recite
substantially similar limitations. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 20, and 24 as unpatentable over
Valenzuela and Felix.
5
Appeal 2015-007971
Application 13/902,697
Rejections (II) and (III)
The Examiner does not rely on either of Hagen or Koneman in any
way that remedies the deficiency discussed above in Rejection (I). See
Appeal Br. 5—13. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2—15 and 21—23 as unpatentable over Valenzuela, Felix, and Hagen
and of claim 25 as unpatentable over Valenzuela, Felix, and Koneman.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—15 and 20—25 is reversed.
REVERSED
6