Honeywell International Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2020

2019005529 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2020)

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.
14/673,524 03/30/2015 Jan Lukas H0043344-5444/1121-592US 8335
89941 7590 09/01/2020
HONEYWELL/S&S
Intellectual Property Services Group
300 S. Tryon Street
Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
BACHNER, ROBERT G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2898
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2020 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAN LUKAS, ONDREJ KOTABA, DAVID C. VACANTI,
MICHAL DOBES, and BRENNAN KILTY

Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, and 23. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 30, 2015 (“Spec.”);
Final Office Action dated Sept. 25, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action
dated Dec. 10, 2018 (“Adv. Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Mar. 22, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated May 13, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
Reply Brief filed July 12, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Honeywell International Inc. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to aircraft weather radar systems and methods.
Spec. ¶¶ 1, 4. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, information indicative of
weather in a volume of airspace surrounding a volume of interest,
wherein the information comprises radar reflectivity values;
determining, by the processor and based at least in part
on a model and the received information, a predicted iced water
content level for the volume of interest, wherein the model is
generated based on an application of a nonlinear regression
technique to previously measured information indicative of
known weather and corresponding previously measured iced
water content; and
outputting, by the processor for display at a display device,
a graphical indication indicative of the predicted ice water
content for the volume of interest.
Appeal Br. 29 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Kamarianakis et al.
(“Kamarianakis”)
US 2014/0309977 Al Oct. 16, 2014

Hogan et al., The Retrieval of IWC from Radar Reflectivity Factor and
Temperature and Its Use in Evaluating a Mesoscale Model, Am.
Meteorological Soc. 301–17 (2006) (“Hogan”).
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

3
Pokharel et al., Evaluation of Collocated Measurements of Radar
Reflectivity and Particle Sizes in Ice Clouds, J. Appl. Meteorology and
Climatology, Vol. 50, 2104–19 (2011) (“Pokharel”).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections:3
1. Claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 18, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pokharel in view of
Kamarianakis (“Rejection 1”). Final Act. 8.
2. Claims 8, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pokharel in view of Kamarianakis as applied to
claims 1, 9, and 19 above, and further in view of Hogan (“Rejection 2”).
Final Act. 14.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions the Examiner and
Appellant advance in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections based essentially on the fact-finding and reasoning the Examiner
provides in the Answer, Advisory Action, and Final Office Action. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 18, 19, 22, and 23 under
§ 103 as obvious over the combination of Pokharel and Kamarianakis. Final
Act. 8–14. In response to the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant presents

3 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–16, 18–20, 22, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn at page 4 of the Answer.
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

4
arguments for the patentability of the rejected claims under separate
headings/groupings in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 15–25), which we
address in turn below.
Claim 1
The Examiner determines that the combination of Pokharel and
Kamarianakis suggests a method satisfying the limitations of claim 1 and
concludes the combination would have rendered the claim obvious. Final
Act. 8–10 (citing Pokharel, 2104–2106, 2109, Fig. 1; Kamarianakis ¶ 79).
The Examiner finds Pokharel discloses the majority of the limitations of
claim 1 but that Pokharel does not disclose “the model is generated based on
an application of a nonlinear regression technique to previously measured
information indicative of known weather and corresponding previously
measured iced water content” recitation of the claim. Id. at 8–9. The
Examiner, however, relies on Kamarianakis for disclosing or suggesting that
limitation. Id. at 9–10. In particular, the Examiner finds Kamarianakis
discloses that historical data may be used in a nonlinear regression technique
to predict current/future states of the previously measured data and nonlinear
regression is a known technique for forecasting based on previously
measured data. Id. at 9–10 (citing Kamarianakis ¶ 79).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art to use nonlinear regression in the method of
Pokharel for the obvious benefit of obtaining good
predictions of measured ice water content based on
previous measurements, and the features of claim[]1
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art.
Id. at 10.
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

5
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the Examiner has failed to establish that Pokharel in view
of Kamarianakis discloses or suggests the method of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15;
Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellant argues that, in contrast to the claimed
method, Pokharel does not describe determining a predicted ice water
content level for a flight line based on information indicative of weather in a
volume of airspace surrounding the flight line. Appeal Br. 16. Rather,
Appellant contends Pokharel describes measuring particle size using a
particle probe and comparing probe measurements with radar measurements.
Id. at 16. Appellant further contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s
findings, Figure 1 of Pokharel does not disclose or suggest “a graphical
indication indicative of the predicted ice water content for the volume of
interest,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 16.
Appellant also contends Pokharel does not disclose “the model is
generated based on an application of a nonlinear regression technique to
previously measured information indicative of known weather and
corresponding previously measured iced water content” recitation of the
claim. Id. at 17. Appellant argues that, because “the ‘conditions’ being
predicted in Pokharel and Kamarianakis are wholly different,” a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Kamarianakis for
suggesting that limitation. Id. at 17–18 (arguing “the Examiner has not
shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a
reference about ‘forecasting models that involve . . . urban occupancy (road
traffic) data’ to modify a method described by Pokharel”).
Appellant also argues the Examiner has failed to establish that “there
would have been an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

6
modify the method and system disclosed by Pokharel in view of
Kamarianakis.” Id. at 15; Reply Br. 3–7. Rather, Appellant contends that
a person of ordinary skill in the art in possession of
Pokharel would not have had any apparent reason, with
rational underpinning, to use a model generated based on
a non-linear regression technique to make a prediction
regarding iced water content based on radar reflectivity
information.
Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 6–7 (same).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection. The preponderance of the evidence of record
supports the Examiner’s fact-finding and reasoning underlying the rejection.
See Ans. 4–8; Final Act. 9–10. Regarding “determining . . . based at least in
part on a model and the received information, a predicted iced water content
level for the volume of interest,” as the Examiner finds (Ans. 4–5; Final
Act. 9), Pokharel discloses taking radar reflectivity measurements in a
volume of airspace, i.e., above the flight path and below the flight path,
performing interpolation on the measured reflectivity data, and using the
interpolated data, at least in part, to predict iced water content. Pokharel,
Abstract (describing “use of the data for establishing relationships between
measured reflectivity and ice water content”), p. 2105 (describing using
measured radar reflectivity data “to derive relationships between reflectivity
and iced water content”), p. 2109 (disclosing “an interpolation is performed
between measured activities above and below the flight line”), Fig. 1
(showing correlation between interpolated reflectivity at flight level and the
concentration of ice particles).
Regarding “outputting . . . a graphical indication indicative of the
predicted ice water content for the volume of interest,” as the Examiner finds
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

7
(Ans. 5–6), Figure 1 of Pokharel shows graphs indicating the correlation
between interpolated radar reflectivity data at flight level in a vertical section
through a deep mountain cloud and the concentration of ice particles (ice
water content) during segments of the flight. See Pokharel, Fig. 1,
pp. 2106–2017. In view of Pokharel’s teachings, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 5; Final Act. 9–10) that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably interpreted or understood the graphical information
in Figure 1 of Pokharel as falling within the scope of “outputting . . . a
graphical indication indicative of the predicted ice water content for the
volume of interest” in the manner claimed, and determine it would have
been obvious to display as part of Pokharel’s radar system. See In re
Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179 (CCPA 1979) (“[A] reference must be
considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly
suggests.”).
Appellant’s arguments do not reveal reversible error in the
Examiner’s analysis or factual findings in this regard. Appellant’s contention
that Pokharel describes measuring particle size using a particle probe and
comparing probe measurements with radar measurements (Appeal Br. 16) is
not persuasive because Pokharel is good for all it teaches and would have
reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 661
(CCPA 1977) (stating that a “reference must be evaluated for all it teaches”).
The fact that Pokharel discusses measuring particle sizes using a particle
probe and comparing probe measurements with radar measurements, without
more, does not negate or take away from Pokharel’s teachings regarding
receiving radar reflectivity measurements in a volume of airspace,
interpolating the data, and using the interpolated data, at least in part, to
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

8
produce a correlation between interpolated radar reflectivity and the
concentration of ice particles (see Pokharel, Abstract, pp. 2105–2107, 2109,
Fig. 1), which, we agree with the Examiner, reasonably suggests
“determining . . . based at least in part on a model and the received
information, a predicted iced water content level for the volume of interest,”
as claimed.
Appellant’s contention that Pokharel does not disclose “the model is
generated based on an application of a nonlinear regression technique to
previously measured information indicative of known weather and
corresponding previously measured iced water content” (Appeal Br. 17) is
not persuasive because it is premised on what Appellant contends the
Pokharel reference teaches individually, and not the combined teachings of
the cited prior art references as a whole, and what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner does not rely solely upon Pokharel for
disclosing that limitation. Rather, as we previously discuss above, the
Examiner relies on Kamarianakis for disclosing or suggesting “an
application of a nonlinear regression technique” recitation of the claim. See
Ans. 5–6; Final Act. 9–10 (citing Kamarianakis ¶ 79).
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has failed to establish an
apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pokharel’s
method in view of Kamarianakis’ disclosure (Appeal Br. 15, 18) is equally
unpersuasive. Contrary to what Appellant argues, on the record before us,
we determine that the Examiner does provide a sufficient and well-supported
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

9
reason with rational underpinning to evince why one of ordinary skill would
have combined the teachings of Pokharel and Kamarianakis to arrive at
Appellant’s claimed method. Final Act. 5 (explaining it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nonlinear regression in
Pokharel’s method to obtain good predictions of ice water content based on
previously measured radar reflectivity information); Kamarianakis ¶ 8
(disclosing that “[t]hrough the use of this technique, significant accuracy
gains are achieved and at virtually no loss of important information to the
end user”), ¶ 79 (disclosing nonlinear regression as a known prediction
method); Pokharel 2105 (noting “that reflectivity is a highly nonlinear
measure”); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007)
(explaining that any need or problem known in the art can provide a reason
for combining the elements in the manner claimed).
Appellant’s disagreement as to the Examiner’s factual findings and
reason for combining the references, without more, is insufficient to
establish reversible error. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439
F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[M]ere statements of disagreement . . . as
to the existence of factual disputes do not amount to a developed
argument.”).
Appellant’s contentions that “the ‘conditions’ being predicted in
Pokharel and Kamarianakis are wholly different” (Appeal Br. 17) and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Pokharel in view
of Kamarianakis because Kamarianakis relates to “forecasting models that
involve . . . urban occupancy (road traffic) data” (id. at 17–18) are not
persuasive because Kamarianakis’ teachings are not limited to the
disclosures in its preferred embodiments or intended uses. See In re Susi,
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

10
440 F.2d 442, 445-46 (CCPA 1971) (explaining that disclosure of particular
preferred embodiments does not teach away from a prior art reference’s
broader disclosure); see also In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289,
1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that
it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.”).
Although Kamarianakis describes nonlinear regression methods for use in
forecasting models that involve “urban occupancy (road traffic)”
(Kamarianakis ¶ 7), such disclosure is exemplary or merely preferred
embodiments and, without more, does not negate or take away from
Kamarianakis’ broad disclosure regarding nonlinear regression being a
known technique for reducing data volatility and use in models for making
accurate predictions based on previous measurements (Kamarianakis ¶¶ 3, 8,
79). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”).
Moreover, as the Examiner finds and explains (Ans. 6–8), Pokharel
and Kamarianakis are analogous art because they relate to similar problems,
i.e., prediction of conditions using previously measured data and issues with
asymmetric and scattered data (Pokharel, Fig. 1, 2105, 2109; Kamarianakis,
Figs. 4, 6, ¶¶ 2, 8, 48), which is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by
the Inventors and that the claimed invention seeks to address (Spec. ¶¶ 4, 20,
32). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating the
criteria for determining whether prior art is analogous); see also In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“A reference is reasonably pertinent if .
. . it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would
have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

11
problem.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have had reasonable basis to look to Kamarianakis and
consider modifying Pokharel’s method in view of Kamarianakis’ teachings.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claims 9, 18, 22, and 23
Although Appellant nominally presents arguments for the
patentability of dependent claims 9, 18, 22, and 23, enumerated under
separate headings, respectively, at pages 20, 21, 23, and 24 of the Appeal
Brief, Appellant does not present any additional substantive argument, but
instead repeats and relies principally on the same arguments Appellant
previously presents above in response to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Thus, based on the fact-finding, analysis, and conclusions the Examiner
provides in the record, and for principally the same reasons we discuss
above for sustaining the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 18, 22, and 23.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the
graphical indication is indicative of the predicted iced water content being
above a specified level or of one or more ranges of predicted iced water
content values.” Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Pokharel and
Kamarianakis suggests a method satisfying the limitations of claim 2 and
concludes the combination would have rendered the claim obvious. Final
Act. 8–10. Regarding “the graphical indication is indicative of the predicted
iced water content being above a specified level or of one or more ranges of
predicted iced water content values” recitation of claim 2, the Examiner
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

12
finds Pokharel teaches that limitation because the graphical indication of
Figure 1 of Pokharel is “indicative of predicted ice water content being
above any arbitrary specified level.” Id. at 10 (internal quotes omitted). The
Examiner finds and explains that, because claim 2 does not recite any
“specified level” or specific “ranges of predicted iced water content values,”
and Figure 1 of Pokharel indicates that the predicted iced water content (ice
concentration) is greater than zero, Figure 1 of Pokharel discloses that
limitation of the claim. Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 should be
reversed because Figure 1 of Pokharel does not disclose or suggest “the
graphical indication is indicative of the predicted iced water content being
above a specified level or of one or more ranges of predicted iced water
content values,” as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 19–20; Reply Br. 8.
Appellant contends
the Examiner appears to have read out the recitation that
the “graphical indication is indicative of the predicted iced
water content being above a specified level or of one or
more ranges of predicted iced water content values” and
appears to have based the rejection on an assertion that
FIG. 1 of Pokharel illustrates predicted iced water content
level in general.
Appeal Br. 19. Appellant further contends Figure 1 of Pokharel “fails to
show any consideration to the measured concentration of ice particles ‘being
above a specified level or of one or more ranges of predicted iced water
content values,’ instead of merely showing whatever data was measured.”
Id. at 19–20.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection. Rather, we determine the Examiner’s
interpretation of the phrase “the graphical indication is indicative of the
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

13
predicted iced water content being above a specified level or of one or more
ranges of predicted iced water content values” of claim 2 constitutes the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification and
language of the claim.
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must
be read in light of the specification, as they would have been interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 1364.
As we note above, claim 2 does not recite any specified level or
ranges of predicted iced water content values. The Specification also does
not provide any special definition for the phrase “the graphical indication is
indicative of the predicted iced water content being above a specified level
or of one or more ranges of predicted iced water content values” beyond the
language recited in the claim. Further, Appellant does not identify or direct
us to any description in the Specification indicating that the phrase must
narrowly be construed to mean any specified level or ranges of predicted
iced water content values beyond the language of the claim. Thus, absent
any special or scope-limiting definition in the Specification, we find the
Examiner correctly applies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
phrase to mean the graphical indication is indicative of predicted iced water
content being above any arbitrary specified level. In re ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e look to the
specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise
apply a broad interpretation.”).
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

14
Moreover, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the
graphical indication is indicative of the predicted iced water content being
above a specified level or of one or more ranges of predicted iced water
content values” claim language to the cited art, we discern no reversible
error in the Examiner’s finding that Figure 1 of Pokharel discloses that
limitation of the claim. In particular, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 8) that Figure 1 of Pokharel
indicates that the predicted iced water content (ice concentration) is greater
than zero, which we determine falls reasonably within the scope of the
language of the claim.
Appellant’s contention that “Pokharel does not describe the
concentration of ice particles as ‘predicted iced water content,’ but instead as
measured particle sizes using a particle probe” (Appeal Br. 19) is not
persuasive because, as we discuss above with claim 1, the fact that Pokharel
describes measuring particle sizes using a particle probe does not negate or
take away from Pokharel’s disclosure regarding receiving radar reflectivity
measurements in a volume of airspace, interpolating the data, and using the
interpolated data, at least in part, to produce a correlation between
interpolated radar reflectivity and the concentration of ice particles for
predicting iced water content in the manner claimed.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Claims 12 and 19
Although Appellant nominally presents arguments for the
patentability of dependent claims 12 and 19 enumerated under separate
headings, respectively, at pages 21 and 22 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant
does not present any additional substantive argument, but instead repeats and
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

15
relies principally on the same arguments Appellant previously presents
above in response to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Thus, based on the
fact-finding, analysis, and conclusions the Examiner provides in the record,
and for principally the same reasons we discuss above for sustaining the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 12 and 19.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 12,
18, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
Pokharel and Kamarianakis.
Rejection 2
The Examiner’s rejects claims 8, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combination of Pokharel, Kamarianakis, and Hogan. Final
Act. 14. In response to the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant presents separate
arguments for the patentability of each claim, which we address in turn
below.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the processor, information indicative
of weather in the volume of interest, wherein the
information comprises radar reflectivity values; and
determining, by the processor and based at least in
part on the model, the information indicative of weather in
the volume of interest, and the information indicative of
weather in the volume of airspace surrounding the
volume of interest, the predicted iced water content level
for the volume of interest.
Appeal Br. 30 (Claims Appendix) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded).
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

16
The Examiner determines that the combination of Pokharel,
Kamarianakis, and Hogan suggests a method satisfying the limitations of
claim 8 and concludes the combination would have rendered the claim
obvious. Final Act. 8–10, 14. Regarding “the information indicative of
weather in the volume of airspace surrounding the volume of interest”
recitation of claim 8, the Examiner finds that Hogan discloses that “simple
incorporation of temperature would make retrieved IWC significantly more
accurate.” Id. at 14 (quoting Hogan 301). The Examiner concludes
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of filing the instantly claimed invention to
adopt “the simple incorporation of temperature” into the
IWC-by-Z-determination of Pokharel et al. . . . motivated
to “make retrieved IWC significantly more accurate” per
Hogan et al. . . . [and] the combination of Pokharel et al.
and Hogan et al. renders obvious that two kinds of
information indicative of weather in a volume of airspace
be provided (temperature in the volume of airspace per
Hogan et al.) and (Z values surrounding the volume of
interest above and below the flight path per p. 2109 of
Pokharel et al.).
Id. at 14.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 should be
reversed because the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Appeal Br. 25. In particular, Appellant argues Hogan does not
disclose or suggest “the information indicative of weather in the volume of
airspace surrounding the volume of interest,” as recited the claim. Id. at 26.
Appellant argues that, although Hogan refers to retrieved ice water content
(IWC), radar reflectivity, and temperature in the same volume of space,
Hogan fails to describe that radar reflectivity and
temperature for “a volume of airspace surrounding a
volume of interest” could have any correlation to “a
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

17
predicted iced water content level for the volume of
interest.”
Id. at 26. Appellant further argues the Examiner fails to establish that there
would have been an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Pokharel’s method in view of Kamarianakis and Hogan to arrive at
the claimed subject matter. Id. at 25.
Appellant also argues the Examiner’s rejection appears to
inadvertently refer to claim 8. Id. at 25. According to Appellant, although
the Examiner refers to claim 8, the rejection actually appears to be directed
to the subject matter of claim 3, which is similar to the subject matter of
claims 13 and 20. Id. at 25–26. Compare claim 8 (Appeal Br. 30) with, claim
3 (Appeal Br. 29).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection. The preponderance of the evidence of record
supports the fact-finding, conclusions, and analysis relied on by the
Examiner in support of the rejection. Ans. 4–8; Final Act. 8–10, 14. In
particular, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 14), Hogan discloses
incorporating temperature in the same volume of airspace and suggests using
temperature measurements along with radar reflectivity measurements to
produce a significantly more accurate correlation with iced water content
(Hogan, Abstract, 301), which, we agree with the Examiner, falls within the
scope of “information indicative of weather in the volume of airspace
surrounding the volume of interest,” as claimed.
The Examiner also provides a reasonable basis to evince why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the cited art to
arrive at the claimed invention. As the Examiner explains (Final Act. 14), it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

18
incorporated temperature into Pokharel’s IWC-by-Z determination method
to make retrieved IWC significantly more accurate, as taught by Hogan, and
doing so was known in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Appellant’s arguments do not reveal reversible error in the
Examiner’s factual findings and analysis in this regard. Appellant’s
contention that “the Examiner may have inadvertently referred to claim 8 in
the rejection” (Appeal Br. 25) is not persuasive because it is speculative and
unsupported by persuasive evidence the record. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that mere lawyer’s arguments or
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by concrete factual evidence,
are entitled to little probative value).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Claims 13 and 20
Although Appellant nominally presents arguments for the
patentability of dependent claims 13 and 20 enumerated under separate
headings, respectively, at page 27 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant does not
present any additional substantive argument, but instead relies principally on
the same arguments Appellant previously presents above for the
patentability of claim 9 and/or claim 18 and in response to the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 (Rejection 1), which we address above. Thus, based on
the fact-finding, analysis, and conclusions the Examiner provides in the
record, and for principally the same reasons we discuss above for sustaining
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, and 18 (Rejection 1), we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 20.
Appeal 2019-005529
Application 14/673,524

19
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 13, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Pokharel,
Kamarianakis, and Hogan.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 9, 12,
18, 19,
22, 23
103 Pokharel,
Kamarianakis
1, 2, 9, 12,
18, 19,
22, 23

8, 13, 20 103 Pokharel,
Kamarianakis,
Hogan
8, 13, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 8, 9, 12,
13, 18–20,
22, 23

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