Litwinowicz, Anthony et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2020

14259198 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 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.
14/259,198 04/23/2014 Anthony Litwinowicz SK-06590-US
(U330233US)
9633
91017 7590 02/04/2020
Cantor Colburn LLP - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
SMITH, AARON C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANTHONY LITWINOWICZ, VINEET SAHASRABUDHE,
ALEX FAYNBERG, JOHN KNAG,
and WILLIAM FELL
___________________

Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–18. Final Act. 8–21.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an apparatus and method for assisting a
pilot of a rotorcraft in avoiding a hard landing, particularly under conditions
where the aircraft carries a heavy load and the pilot’s vision is limited due to
factors such as darkness. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:

1. A method of operating a rotary wing aircraft
comprising:
obtaining data from one or more sensors through a
processing device including a measured vertical rate of descent
of the rotary wing aircraft and a measured distance of the rotary
wing aircraft from at least one of an obstacle and the ground;
processing, by the processing device, the data, including a
sensed weight of the aircraft, to generate a flight envelope
including a predetermined deceleration profile;
generating, through the processing device, a tactile cue
corresponding to the flight envelope; and

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

3
applying the tactile cue to an inceptor operatively
associated with the rotary wing aircraft to encourage
manipulation of the inceptor to a desired position [to]2 maintain
the predetermined deceleration profile of the rotary wing aircraft.

REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 1–3, 6–10, and 13–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Enns, Ishihara, and Ben-Arie.4 Non-Final Act.
12–20.
II. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Enns, Ishihara, Ben-Arie, and Salai. Non-Final Act. 20–
21.5

2 Claims 8 and 15 each recite “to a desired position to maintain” (emphasis
added), and for that reason it appears claim 1 inadvertently omitted the word
“to.”
3 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner also rejected claims 8, 13–15, and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description; and claims 7, 8,
13–15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness. Non-Final Act.
8–12. The Examiner withdrew these rejections in the Answer. Ans. 15–16.
4 Enns et al. (US 2015/0235560 A1, published Aug. 20, 2015); Ishihara et al.
(US 2013/0106623 A1, published May 02, 2013); Ben-Arie et al.
(US 2011/0125346 A1, published May 26, 2011).
5 Meek et al. (US 3,295,795, issued Jan. 03, 1967) (“Salai”).
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

4
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1–3, 5, 8–12, 15, 16, and 206
a. Claim Construction
We begin by construing the limitation at issue.
Claim 1 recites the step of “applying the tactile cue to an inceptor7
operatively associated with the rotary wing aircraft to encourage
manipulation of the inceptor to a desired position [to] maintain the
predetermined deceleration profile of the rotary wing aircraft.” Independent
claims 8 and 15 contain similar limitations.
One claim interpretation advanced by Appellant is that the claimed
tactile cue “guides his [the pilot’s] hand to a desired point.” Appeal Br. 10.
For the reasons that follow, Appellant’s assertion is not commensurate in
scope with the independent claims.
The independent claims do not recite that the tactile cue moves the
inceptor; rather, the tactile cue is required to “encourage manipulation” of
the inceptor, meaning that the cue encourages the pilot to manipulate the
inceptor. See Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 632 F.3d
1246, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the
Protection and Interpretation of Claims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l

6 Appellant argues these claims based on the limitations of the independent
claims (claims 1, 8, and 15). Appeal Br. 12.
7 An inceptor is a flight control such as a collective, cyclic, or anti-torque
pedal. See Spec. ¶ 32.
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

5
Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)) ( “the name of the
game is the claim”).
Turning to the Specification, claim 3, which depends from
independent claim 1, adds that “the tactile cue comprises at least one of a
soft stop, a stick shaker, and a detent.” This connotes that a soft stop, stick
shaker, and a detent can be tactile cues that encourage manipulation of the
inceptor to a desired position to maintain the predetermined deceleration
profile of the aircraft.
The claimed system used velocities, positions, and an onboard
mathematical model to estimate collective and cyclic stick deflections that
adhere to one or more profiles (e.g., a descent or deceleratoni profile). Spec.
¶¶ 24, 29. Tactile cues such as soft stops, stick shakers, and detents can
enforce these flight profiles. Id. This language is consistent with the
interpretation that the claims require the tactile cue to encourage the pilot to
manipulate the inceptor to maintain the predetermined deceleration profile of
the aircraft. Indeed, the Specification expressly states that a “tactile cue (6)
may be used to encourage the pilot to place one or more flight controls (e.g.,
collective, cyclic, anti-torque pedals, etc.) in a particular position or state,
such that the aircraft operates within the profile (4).” Spec. ¶ 32 (emphasis
added); see also ¶ 33 (describing that the method may provide tactile cues to
a pilot for operating an aircraft), Appeal Br. 3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 32, 33, 39; Fig
3 (block 312)).
In light of the Specification, a person of ordinary skill would interpret
that soft stops, stick shakers, and detents are examples of tactile cues that
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

6
may be used to encourage the pilot to manipulate the inceptor (e.g.,
collective or cyclic) to a desired position to maintain the predetermined
deceleration profile of the aircraft. These tactile cues “enforce” the
predetermined deceleration profile by encouraging the pilot to manipulate
the inceptor. See Spec. ¶ 29.

b. Obviousness
Appellant argues based on each of the three prior art references.
1. Enns
Appellant’s first argument relates to Enns.
The Examiner found that Enns discloses a method of generating and
applying a tactile cue when a rate of descent exceeds a threshold. Non-Final
Act. 12–13. The Examiner initially based this finding on an interpretation
that the requirement for the tactile cue to encourage manipulation of the
inceptor to a desired position to maintain the predetermined deceleration
profile was functional language not entitled to patentable eight. Id.
Appellant acknowledges that Enns discloses a system that generates
and applies a tactile warning when a warning condition arises. Appeal
Br. 10. Appellant argues that Enns’s tactile cue is not a tactile cue as
claimed because it does not: “encourage manipulation of an inceptor in a
particular manner to achieve a soft landing,” reduce pilot workload, or guide
the pilot’s hand to a desired point. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner modifies the rejection to assert that Enns
discloses a tactile cue indicating that a rate of descent has exceeded a
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

7
threshold, and this cue encourages manipulation as claimed by encouraging
the pilot to adjust the inceptor to eliminate the condition that is activating the
tactile cue (i.e., exceeding the rate of descent). Ans. 17–18.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not contest that Enns makes such a
disclosure. Rather, Appellant again asserts that Enns’s tactile cue does not
correspond to a tactile cue as claimed. Specifically, Appellant responds that
the Enns’s tactile cues (a back drive, soft stop, and a vibration) are not tactile
cues as claimed because Enns’s tactile cues do not push or pull the inceptor
in a desired direction to reduce pilot workload. Reply Br. 2.
The independent claims do not recite that the tactile cue pushes or
pulls the inceptor in a desired direction. Nor do the claims recite that pilot
workload is reduced or that the pilot’s hand is guided to a certain point.
Further, Appellant does not identify, nor do we discern, a disclosure in the
Specification that supports such an interpretation. Rather, the independent
claims require that the tactile cue encourages the pilot to manipulate the
inceptor to maintain the predetermined deceleration profile. See Ans. 18
(pointing out that the Specification supports the interpretation that the claims
require the tactile cue to encourage manipulation by the pilot rather than the
tactile cue itself manipulating the inceptor).
We agree with the Examiner that Enns’s tactile cue warns the pilot
that a rate of descent has been exceeded and this warning encourages the
pilot to manipulate the inceptor to alleviate that condition. See Enns ¶¶ 70,
71. In other words, once warned by the tactile cue, the pilot will move the
inceptor to a position that does not exceed the predetermined rate of descent
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

8
(i.e. a rate of descent within the predetermined deceleration profile). By this
technique, Enns’s tactile cue encourages manipulation of the inceptor to
maintain the predetermined deceleration profile of the rotary wing aircraft.
For these reasons, Appellant’s argument regarding Enns is not
persuasive of error by the Examiner.
2. Ishihara
Appellant’s second argument relates to Isihara.
The Examiner found that Enns discloses generating a flight envelope
including a predetermined deceleration profile and generates a tactile cue for
exceeding a rate of descent, but Enns does not disclose processing by the
processing device the data including a measured weight of the aircraft.8 The
Examiner relies on Ishihara for processing by the processing device, that
data, including the weight of the aircraft, to generate a flight envelope
including a predetermined deceleration profile. Non-Final Act. 13–14; Enns
¶ 49; Ishihara ¶ 13.
Appellant argues that Ishihara’s alert is not associated with the
inceptor. Appeal. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3. This argument is both
nonresponsive and an individual attack on the reference. The Examiner
relies on Enns, not Ishihara, for association of the alert with the inceptor, and
relies on Ishihara for processing by the processing device. See Non-Final
Act. 13–14.

8 As explained later, the Examiner proposes to modify the combination of
Enns and Ishihara to include sensed weight rather than measured weight in
view of Ben Arie.
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

9
Appellant argues that Ishihara does not contain any teachings that
would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references as the
Examiner proposes. Appeal. Br. 10–11. Although obviousness does not
require an explicit teaching in a reference, a reference may still provide a
rationale underpinning for a proposed modification. See generally KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (rejecting the rigid
requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known
elements in order to show obviousness). Here, the Examiner reasoned that
the proposed modification would facilitate safe operation of an aircraft. See
Non-Final Act. 13–14; Ans. 20–21 (citing Ishihara ¶¶ 1, 12, 13). This
reasoning has a rational underpinning in that Ishihara discloses a system and
method for improving sink rate alerting for rotary wing aircraft. Ishihara
¶¶ 1, 12, 13. Appellant’s argument does not cast doubt on this reasoning.
Appellant adds that, “there is no teachings in Enns or Ishihara that the
pilot is encouraged to manipulate the inceptor to establish a desired inceptor
position to maintain a selected sink rate.” Appeal Br. 11. As detailed in the
previous section, Enns discloses encouraging the pilot to manipulate the
inceptor to maintain the predetermined deceleration profile.
For these reasons, Appellant’s argument regarding Ishihara is not
persuasive of error by the Examiner.
3. Ben-Arie
Appellant’s third argument relates to Ben-Arie.
Appellant argues that Ben-Arie suggests that weight may be a
monitored flight parameter, but does not disclose generating a flight
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

10
envelope based on a sensed weight of an aircraft. Appeal Br. 11; Reply
Br. 3. We agree with the Examiner that Ben-Arie discloses sensing the
weight of the aircraft and generating a flight envelope based on the sensed
weight. Ans. 22; Ben-Arie ¶¶ 7, 17 (Table 1, listing weight as a monitored
flight parameter), 22.
Appellant argues that none of the cited prior art, disclose that
“tactical cues are generated and applied to an inceptor in order to move an
aircraft to a selected point in a flight envelope.” Appeal Br. 11. For the
reasons that follow, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the
claims at issue.
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1 and recites that the tactile
cue “is selected to encourage a pilot to operate the aircraft at a selected point
within the flight envelope.” The presence of this limitation in claim 6
suggests independent claim 1 does not contain this limitation. See Liebel-
Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(“[W]here the limitation that is sought to be ‘read into’ an independent claim
already appears in a dependent claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation is
at its strongest.”).
For these reasons, Appellant’s argument regarding Ben-Arie is not
persuasive of error by the Examiner.
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

11
4. Conclusion
Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claims 1–3, 5,
8–12, 15, 16, and 20.9

II. Claims 6 and 13
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1 and recites “wherein the
tactile cue is selected to encourage a pilot to operate the aircraft at a selected
point within the flight envelope.” Claim 13 depends from independent claim
8 and contains a similar limitation.
Claims 6 and 13 require that the tactile cue encourages the pilot to
manipulate the inceptor to operate the aircraft at a selected point within the
flight envelope. The claims do not specify which point within the flight
envelope; rather, the claims require encouraging manipulation to any point
within the flight envelope.
In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner determined that the claim
language “to encourage a pilot to operate at a selected point with the flight
envelope” is functional language entitled to no patentable weight. Non-Final
Act. 14–15.
Appellant argues that none of the cited prior art employs a tactile cue to
encourage manipulation of an inceptor to a selected point. Appeal Br. 11;
Reply Br. 3.

9 The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 12 as obvious over Enns, Ishihara,
Ben-Arie, and Salai. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive for these
claims for the same reasons given with regard to the independent claims.
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

12
In the Answer, the Examiner modifies the rejection to give patentable
weight to the limitation at issue. Ans. 23. Specifically, the Examiner
explains that Enns’s tactile cue encourages the pilot to adjust the aircraft
controls to eliminate the dangerous condition (exceeding the descent rate)
and in doing so moves the inceptor to a point that eliminates the condition.
Id. We agree. Enns tactile cue encourages the pilot to manipulate the
inceptor to a point that is not triggering the cue, which is by definition a
point within the predetermined deceleration profile.
Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claims 6
and 13.

III. Claims 7, 14, and 18
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and recites, “wherein the selected point
within the flight envelope is selected to provide a soft landing of the
aircraft.” Claims 14 and 18 contain similar provisions.
Appellant argues that
providing an alert that a rate of decent may be exceeded is not
the same as providing a tactile cue that encourages a specific
action to be taken. Simply shaking an inceptor, as is the case in
Enns, does not equate to a tactile cue that encourages a pilot to
take specific action so as to reduce pilot workload as is the case
of the present invention. Further, providing a tactile cue that
encourages a pilot to achieve a soft landing alleviates pilot
workload and is different than simply providing a warning. The
Appellant respectfully submits that providing a warning is not
the same as providing a force, - such as a specific tactile cue,
encouraging action that would lead to specific behavior.
Appeal 2019-004199
Application 14/259,198

13
Appeal Br. 12.
We discern no meaningful distinction between this argument and the
one made against Enns with regard to the independent claims. This
argument is unpersuasive for the reasons given above. Consequently,
Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection of claims 7, 14, and 18.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–
10, 13–
18
103 Enns, Ishihara,
Ben-Arie
1–3, 6–
10, 13–18

5, 12 103 Enns, Ishihara,
Ben-Arie, Salai
5, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–
10, 12–18

AFFIRMED