Arnaud Branthomme et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 1, 2020

15158802 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 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.
15/158,802 05/19/2016 Arnaud BRANTHOMME 11000797.1044 1840
23280 7590 05/01/2020
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th Avenue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIMBINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2020 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):
ddk@ddkpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ARNAUD BRANTHOMME, IGOR FAIN,
and
PATRICK DARSES
____________________

Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,8021
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 3–15, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Dassault Aviation. (Appeal Br.
2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 19, 2016, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December 18, 2017, the Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed April 27, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed June 22, 2018, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 21,
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method and system for “displaying
information related to a flight of an aircraft” by “generat[ing] at least two
successive transition synthesis images between an image according to a first
type of perspective and an image according to a second type of perspective,
or between an image according to a second type of perspective and an image
according to a first type of perspective,” and displaying the successive
transition synthesis images at successive transition moments. (Spec. ¶ 2;
Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
added emphases, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system destined to display information related to a flight
of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a dynamic synthesis image generator configured to
dynamically generate synthesis images, each synthesis image
comprising a depiction of the environment situated in a vicinity
of a trajectory of the aircraft,
the dynamic synthesis image generator being configured
to generate successive three-dimensional transition synthesis
images, the three-dimensional transition synthesis images
including a first succession of at least two successive three-
dimensional transitional synthesis images and/or a second
succession of at least two successive three-dimensional
transitional synthesis images, the first succession of at least two
successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images being
generated between a three-dimensional synthesis image
according to a first type of perspective and a synthesis image
according to a second type of perspective, the second succession
of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional
synthesis images being generated between a synthesis image
according to a second type of perspective and a three-

2018.
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

3
dimensional synthesis image according to a first type of
perspective, the dynamic synthesis image generator being
configured to command the successive display of the first
succession and/or the second succession of three-dimensional
transition synthesis images by a display at successive transition
moments,
each of the three-dimensional transition synthesis images
being depicted according the first type of perspective, each of the
three-dimensional transition synthesis images being centered on
an intermediate central point of interest, each of the three-
dimensional transition synthesis images being seen from an
intermediate point of view located at an intermediate observation
distance from the intermediate central point of interest, each of
the three-dimensional transition synthesis images being seen
from an intermediate opening angle,
the intermediate observation distances of the successive
three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the first
succession being an increasing function of the transition
moments at which the successive three-dimensional transition
synthesis images of the first succession are displayed, and the
intermediate opening angles of the successive three-
dimensional transition synthesis images of the first succession
being a decreasing function of the transition moments at which
the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images of
the first succession are displayed,
the intermediate observation distances of the successive
three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the second
succession being a decreasing function of the transition
moments at which the successive three-dimensional transition
synthesis images of the second succession are displayed, and the
intermediate opening angles of the successive three-
dimensional transition synthesis images of the second succession
being an increasing function of the transition moments at
which the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis
images of the second succession are displayed,
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

4
wherein there exists at least one first and one second
successive transition moments, the second transition moment
being after the first transition moment, such that:
the intermediate observation distance of a first three-
dimensional transition synthesis image of the first succession
destined to be displayed at the first transition moment is strictly
less than the intermediate observation distance of a second
three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the first
succession destined to be displayed at the second transition
moment, and the intermediate opening angle of the first three-
dimensional transition synthesis image of the first succession
is strictly larger than the intermediate opening angle of the
second three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the first
succession,
the intermediate observation distance of a first three-
dimensional transition synthesis image of the second
succession destined to be displayed at the first transition moment
is strictly greater than the intermediate observation distance of
a second three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the
second succession destined to be displayed at the second
transition moment, and the intermediate opening angle of the
first three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the second
succession is strictly smaller than the intermediate opening
angle of the second three-dimensional transition synthesis
image of the second succession.

(Appeal Br. 19–20 (Claims App.) (emphases added).)3

REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 3, and 7–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Buratto et al. (US 2013/0249712 A1, published Sept. 26, 2013)

3 The first page of Appellant’s Claim Appendix is not numbered, while the
second page of Appellant’s Claim Appendix is numbered as page 2. We
count the pages of Appellant’s Claim Appendix continuing from the
numbered page 18 of Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

5
(“Buratto”) and Morizet et al. (US 2004/0225420 A1, published Nov. 11,
2004) (“Morizet”). (Final Act. 2–18.)
(2) Claims 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Buratto, Morizet, and Wenger et al. (US 8,344,911 B1, issued Jan. 1, 2013)
(“Wenger”). (Final Act. 18–20.)

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 6–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends Buratto and
Morizet do not teach or suggest the disputed limitations indicated supra.
(Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–3.)4 With respect to Buratto, Appellant
argues it does not mention “modifying the observation distance in any
manner, or an opening angle,” and does not mention “a correlation between
(1) an increase of the intermediate observation distances and a decrease of
the intermediate opening angle for successive transition images or (2) a
decrease of the intermediate observation distances and an increase of the
intermediate opening angle for successive transition images.” (Appeal Br.
10–11.) Appellant concludes that Buratto does not disclose “increasing the
intermediate observation distances for successive transition images
while decreasing the intermediate opening angle in the manner recited in
claim 1” or “decreasing the intermediate observation distances for
successive transition images while increasing the intermediate opening
angle in the manner recited in claim 1.” (Id.) We do not agree with
Appellant.

4 We count the pages of the Reply Brief (which are not numbered) starting
from the first page.
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

6
We agree with the Examiner that Buratto’s dynamic transition from a
plan view (horizontal section viewed from above, as shown in Figure 3 of
Buratto) to a perspective view (with image data from at least two plan views,
as shown in Figure 8) via one or more intermediate views (such as those
shown in Figures 4–7), teaches “a first succession of at least two successive
three-dimensional transitional synthesis images” of first and second
perspective types, as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 3–4 (citing Buratto
¶¶ 28–29, 33, 86–90, 121–126, 172–175, Figs. 3–8).) We agree because
Appellant’s Specification similarly describes perspective types (of synthesis
images) that include a horizontal projection view (as shown in Figure 3) and
a conical view (as shown in Figure 2). (See Spec. ¶¶ 42 (“The first type of
perspective is preferably a conical perspective, i.e., with a vanishing point”),
48 (“synthesis images according to the second type of perspective are for
example images seen from an axonometric perspective . . . [s]uch a
perspective is also called cylindrical, orthographic, parallel or orthonormal
perspective”), 49–50 (“An example of a synthesis image 39a according to
the second type of perspective, in horizontal projection, i.e., seen from
above, is illustrated in Figure 3”).) We additionally note, since Appellant’s
claim 1 does not provide specific details for the “first type of perspective”
and “second type of perspective,” Buratto’s transition from a perspective
view (e.g., Figure 8) to a plan view (Figure 3) via intermediate views may
equally teach a “first succession of at least two successive three-dimensional
transitional synthesis images” between an image according to a first type of
perspective and an image according to a second type of perspective, as
recited in claim 1.
Additionally, Buratto’s reverse dynamic transition from a perspective
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

7
view (e.g., Figure 8) to a plan view (Figure 3) teaches “a second succession
of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images” of
second and first perspective types, as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 3–4; see
Buratto ¶ 90 (describing a dynamic transition from a perspective view to a
plan view).) And, since Appellant’s claim 1 does not provide specific
details for the “first type of perspective” and “second type of perspective,”
Buratto’s transition from a plan view (e.g., Figure 3) to a perspective view
(Figure 8) via intermediate views may equally teach “a second succession of
at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images”
between an image according to a second type of perspective and an image
according to a first type of perspective, as recited in claim 1.
We further agree with the Examiner that Buratto’s dynamic transitions
between plan and perspective views, or perspective and plan views, via
successive geometric transformations including rotational and translational
transformations, teach or at least suggest increasing intermediate
observation distances for successive transition images while decreasing the
intermediate opening angles, and decreasing intermediate observation
distances for successive transition images while increasing the intermediate
opening angles, as required by claim 1. (Ans. 3–4 (citing Buratto ¶¶ 25, 27–
29, 62–64); Final Act. 4–6 (citing Buratto ¶¶ 121–125, 172–175).)
At the outset, we note that the broadly claimed decrease (or increase)
of intermediate opening angles with an increase (or decrease) of
intermediate observation distances for successive transition images reads on
the known mathematical relationship of inverse proportionality between
solid angle (Ω) and distance (r) to a field of view/object subtending the solid
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

8
angle.5 According to this mathematical relationship, the solid angle
subtended by a given object (e.g., subtended by a field of view of a given
area) is inversely proportional to the distance between the object and the
apex/origin of the solid angle (i.e., the point from which the object/field of
view is viewed).
Because Buratto transitions from a plan view (Figure 3) to a
perspective view (Figure 8, showing substantially the same airspace area as
Figure 3, but from a different vantage point) by rotational and translational
geometric transformations (see Ans. 3–4), we find a skilled artisan would
recognize that a distance (parameter r, mentioned supra) from the vantage
point to the imaged airspace area may change between Buratto’s Figure 3
and Figure 8 (e.g., be larger or smaller for Figure 8 than it is for Figure 3).
(See Buratto ¶¶ 37–39, 130, 172–174.) Such change in distance would
effect an inversely proportional change in the solid angles (Ω) subtended by
Figures 3 and 8, thereby either: (i) decreasing the intermediate opening
angles (solid angles subtended by the airspace area in Figures 3 and 8)
between Figure 3 and Figure 8 (i.e., claim 1’s angles being “a decreasing
function of the transition moments” at which Buratto’s Figures 3 and 8 are
displayed), while increasing intermediate observation distances (distances
from the vantage point to the imaged airspace) between Figure 3 and Figure
8 (i.e., claim 1’s distances being “an increasing function of the transition

5 See, e.g., Wolfram MathWorld, describing “[t]he solid angle Ω subtended
by a surface S is defined as the surface area Ω of a unit sphere covered by
the surface’s projection onto the sphere,” the solid angle Ω being “Ω ≡
∫∫S ( ·da)/(r2), where is a unit vector from the origin, da is the differential
area of a surface patch, and r is the distance from the origin to the patch.”
(See https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SolidAngle.html (last accessed Apr.
24, 2020).)
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

9
moments” at which Figures 3 and 8 are displayed); or (ii) vice versa—that
is, decreasing the intermediate observation distances while increasing the
intermediate opening angles from Figure 3 to Figure 8, as required by claim
1.
The above-mentioned increasing (or decreasing) of intermediate
observation distances while decreasing (or increasing) the intermediate
opening angles/solid angles from Figure 3 to Figure 8 in Buratto also
indicates that Figure 3’s intermediate observation distance “is strictly less”
(or “strictly greater,” as recited in claim 1) than Figure 8’s intermediate
observation distance. Additionally, decreasing (or increasing) intermediate
opening angles/solid angles with increasing (or decreasing) intermediate
observation distances from Figure 3 to Figure 8 in Buratto also indicates that
Figure 3’s intermediate opening angle “is strictly larger” (or “strictly
smaller,” as claimed) than Figure 8’s intermediate opening angle, as required
by claim 1. Figure 3’s intermediate opening angle being “strictly larger” (or
“strictly smaller,” as recited in claim 1) than Figure 8’s intermediate opening
angle (as discussed supra) also indicates that intermediate opening angles
are “a strictly decreasing function of the transition moment[s]” between
Figure 3 and Figure 8 of Buratto (or “a strictly increasing function of the
transition moment[s],” in a reverse transition), as recited in dependent
claim 6 separately argued by Appellant. (Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 6.)
That is, since claim 6 does not specify details of the claimed “strictly
decreasing function” and “strictly increasing function,” the “strictly
decreasing function” (and “strictly increasing function”) reads on a decrease
(or increase) between two values (of angles, as discussed supra).
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

10
Thus, Buratto’s transitions from a plan view (e.g., Figure 3) to a
perspective view (Figure 8), and vice versa, suggest the disputed limitations
of claim 1 indicated above. Buratto’s transitions from a plan view (e.g.,
Figure 3) to a perspective view (Figure 8) and vice versa, also suggest the
“strictly decreasing function” and “strictly increasing function” limitations
recited in claim 6.
Therefore, for all the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1, independent
claim 13 for which Appellant provides the same arguments, and dependent
claim 6. Appeal Br. 8, 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 3, 7–12, 14, and 15 not separately argued. Appeal Br. 13.

Rejection of Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites “the dynamic
synthesis image generator is configured to determine the intermediate
observation distances of the successive three-dimensional transition
synthesis images of the first and/or second succession according to a
nonlinear function of the transition moments at which the three-dimensional
transition synthesis images are displayed.” (Appeal Br. 21 (Claim 4).) The
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 cites to “generating non-linearly space
graduations for a symbolic linear scale of Wenger” and “a non-linear
function of the transition according to Buratto.” (Final Act. 18 (citing
Wenger 6:1–7:67, Figs. 3A–3B); Ans. 7–8 (citing Buratto ¶¶ 162–169, Fig.
3).)
Appellant contends the cited art does not teach the feature of claim 4
requiring determination of intermediate observation distances of the
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

11
successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images “according to a
nonlinear function of the transition moments at which the three-
dimensional transition synthesis images are displayed.” (Appeal Br. 14)
(underlining omitted.) We agree with Appellant. The cited portions of
Wenger generate non-linearly spaced graduations for a spatial scale that
reduces spatial distortion of objects viewed in perspective projection, thus
not teaching a nonlinear function of moments at which synthesis images are
displayed (as recited in claim 4). (Appeal Br. 14; see Wenger 1:39–55, 6:1–
7:67, Figs. 3A–3B.) The cited portions of Buratto teach details of a plane’s
flight path, which does not support the Examiner’s finding of “a non-linear
function of the transition” in Buratto. (See Ans. 7 (emphasis added);
Buratto ¶¶ 162–169.) Although Buratto teaches and suggests claim 1’s
“increasing function of the transition moments” and “decreasing function of
the transition moments” (as discussed supra with respect to claim 1), we do
not find that Buratto discloses determining intermediate observation
distances according to a nonlinear function of the transition moments (as
claim 4 requires).
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
rejection of claim 4, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 dependent from
claim 4 and further requiring “the nonlinear function [determining the
intermediate observation distances]” to be “a convex function.”

DECISION SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6–15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2018-008366
Application 15/158,802

12
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 7–15 103 Buratto, Morizet

1, 3, 7–15
4–6 103 Buratto, Morizet, Wenger 6 4, 5
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 6–15 4, 5

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 IN PART