Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2021

2020004735 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

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.
14/331,089 07/14/2014 Gregory T. Stayton 78057.00293 1085
35161 7590 03/31/2021
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 EYE ST., NW
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
BARKER, MATTHEW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2021 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):
dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY T. STAYTON and CHUCK MANBERG
____________

Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–24, which are all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Aviation Communication & Surveillance
Systems LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089

2
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of providing interval management by encoding
an overlay message onto a provided modulated air traffic
control (ATC) signal, the method comprising:
obtaining a spacing goal for an aircraft relative to the
target aircraft;
determining clearance instructions for the aircraft; and
employing a selected overlay modulation protocol; and
modulating the provided modulated ATC signal with the
overlay message using the selected overlay modulation
protocol, wherein the provided modulated ATC signal is
modulated with a pulse position modulation protocol, wherein
the overlay message is configured to provide interval
management with respect to a flight path of a target aircraft;
transmitting the clearance instructions in the overlay
message; and
transmitting through the clearance instructions,
information relating to a plurality of target aircraft, comprising
a second target identification, a second target intended flight
path, and a two-target spacing type;
wherein:
the ATC signal is independently demodulatable from the
overlay message; and
the ATC signal modulated with the overlay message is
recognizable as an ATC signal by legacy ATC equipment.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stayton (US 2010/0079329 A1, pub. Apr.
1, 2010) (hereinafter, “Stayton”), Randall S. Bone et al., “Evaluation of Pilot
Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089

3
and Air Traffic Controller Use of Third Party Call Sign in Voice
Communications with Pilot Utilization of Cockpit Display of Traffic
Information,” Mitre Technical Report (2013) (hereinafter, “Bone”), and
Bryan E. Barmore et al., “A concept for Airborne Precision Spacing for
Dependent Parallel Approaches,” NASA/TM–2012-217346 (2012)
(hereinafter, “Barmore”).
Claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Stayton, Bone, Barmore, and de Blanes et al. (US
2013/0338909 A1, pub. Dec. 19, 2013) (hereinafter, “de Blanes”).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Stayton, Bone, and Barmore
(Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–23)
Appellant presents substantive argument for claim 1 only. Appeal Br.
8–12. We select claim 1 as representative to decide the appeal as to the
rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 3–5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15–17,
and 19–23 stand or fall with claim 1.
As for claim 1, the Examiner finds Stayton discloses a method of
encoding an overlay message onto a provided modulated air traffic control
(ATC) signal, comprising, inter alia, modulating the provided modulated
ATC signal with an overlay message configured to provide ATC
information with respect to a target aircraft, wherein the provided modulated
ATC signal is modulated using a pulse position modulation protocol, and
transmitting clearance instructions in the overlay message. Final Act. 3
(citing Stayton ¶¶ 15, 17, Fig. 1). The Examiner concedes Stayton “does not
Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089

4
specify that the ATC information provided is information specifically to
provide interval management.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Bone as teaching that interval management
(IM), which includes communicating a spacing goal as part of clearance
instructions, is a known ATC technique. Final Act. 3 (citing Bone 2–23).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, in view of Bone, to modify Stayton to provide interval
management data including a spacing goal as a form of air traffic
management to reduce air traffic controller workload. Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner also finds that Bone discloses clearance instructions
that include target identification, intended flight path, and spacing type, but
not two-target interval management, as recited in the second “transmitting”
step of claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Barmore as teaching
that two-target interval management is a known ATC technique. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to communicate the
recited two-target interval management information to reduce ATC burden,
with predictable results. Id.
Appellant presents several arguments against the rejection. First,
Appellant contends Bone describes the use of IM management where a
ground controller determines an IM status and a desired interval/spacing
goal, the controller provides initiation information to the flight crew, and the
flight crew enters the information into the onboard FIM equipment. Appeal
Br. 10. Appellant contends Bone fails to teach or suggest any transmission
of clearance instructions in any format that would enable inclusion in an
overlay message; rather, the information is only communicated via voice
from the controller to the flight crew. Id.
Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089

5
Second, Appellant presents substantially this same argument in regard
to Barmore. Appeal Br. 10.
Third, Appellant contends the applied references also fail to teach or
suggest converting orally-transmitted information into digital information, or
how to make this conversion. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant acknowledges
Stayton discloses modulating an ATC modulated signal with an overlay
message, and both Bone and Barmore disclose the communication of
clearance instructions. Id. However, Appellant contends Stayton “fails to
teach or suggest any means of converting an analog message into a digital
message that could be incorporated into the overlay message” (emphasis
omitted), and Bone and Barmore both “presume ‘transmission’ of clearance
instructions orally from a controller to flight crew. There is no teaching or
suggestion of any digital transmission which could possibly be included in a
modulated overlay message.” Id. According to Appellant, the mere
description of an overlay message in Stayton, and orally-communicated
clearance instructions in Bone and Barmore, does not teach or suggest
including clearance instructions, or any IM information, in an overlay
message, or how to accomplish this. Id. at 11–12.
In response to Appellant’s first and second arguments, the Examiner
points out Stayton discloses that the modulated overlay message (overlay
data) may include:
any information desired to be transmitted, including but not
limited to, navigation, communication, monitoring, aircraft
management, flight control, collision avoidance, vectoring,
terrain avoidance, protected area warnings, traffic management,
satellite based air traffic management, FIS-B, ASDE-X, and
additional or supplementary ATC information.
Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089

6
Ans. 3 (citing Stayton ¶ 15). The Examiner submits that the recited
“‘clearance instructions’ that ‘provide interval management’ and convey
‘information relating to a plurality of target aircraft,’” as disclosed by Bone
and Barmore, are examples of information in the categories of
“communication,” “monitoring,” “traffic management,” and “additional or
supplementary ATC information” disclosed by Stayton. Id. at 3–4; see
Stayton ¶ 15.
The Examiner also explains that the combination does not require
conversion of an air traffic controller voice (“analog message”) into digital
data that can then be used to modulate the ATC signal using Stayton’s
overlay techniques. Ans. 4. Rather, the Examiner submits, an air traffic
controller performing Stayton’s method and motivated by Bone and
Barmore to include clearance instructions for interval management would
not convert a voice signal to a digital signal. Id. Instead, the air traffic
controller would merely provide the desired information in the same manner
as any of the information disclosed in paragraph 15 of Stayton for
modulation, that is, rather than speaking the message. Id. at 4–5.
In reply, Appellant contends that “the Examiner provided no
explanation . . . of how one of skill in the arts reviewing the Bone or
Barmore reference would somehow create a modulated ATC signal from
vocal instructions for overlay modulation onto an ATC signal.” Reply Br. 2.
However, we understand that the Examiner’s combination relies on
the information contained in Bone’s and Barmore’s vocal instructions (i.e.,
clearance instructions), and proposes to incorporate this information in
Stayton’s modulated ATC signal, which is overlaid onto a provided
modulated ATC signal. As disclosed in Stayton, “[t]he overlay data may
Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089

7
comprise any information desired to be transmitted.” Stayton ¶ 15
(emphasis added). Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
finding that the clearance instruction information taught by Bone and
Barmore can be considered as corresponding to at least one of
“communication,” “monitoring,” “traffic management,” or “additional or
supplementary ATC information,” which are just exemplary types of overlay
data (overlaid message) that can be encoded onto a provided modulated
ATC signal and transmitted in Stayton.
In response to Appellant’s third argument, the Examiner submits that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the ability (requisite skill) to
provide “clearance instructions,” as taught by Bone and Barmore, in digital
format. Ans. 5. Stayton discloses that “[t]he ATC modulation protocol and
the overlay modulation protocol may comprise any single or combination
digital modulation scheme,” and lists “pulse position modulation,” as recited
in claim 1, as an exemplary modulation protocol. See Stayton ¶ 17
(emphasis added). In light of this disclosure, Appellant has not provided
persuasive argument or evidence that apprises us of Examiner error.
As for Appellant’s contention that none of the applied references
teaches or suggests an overlay message “configured to provide interval
management,” as recited (Appeal Br. 11), Appellant does not explain
persuasively why the “clearance instructions” taught by Bone and Barmore
fail to provide “interval management.” To the extent Appellant is
contending that Stayton, Bone, or Barmore must provide explicit disclosure
of “modulating [a] provided modulated ATC signal with [an] overlay
message . . . [that] is configured to provide interval management with
respect to a flight path of a target aircraft,” as recited, we disagree. An
Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089

8
Examiner is not required to “seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Rather, in an obviousness analysis, an
Examiner can consider not only the express disclosures of the references, but
also the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would employ.” Id.
Lastly, Appellant’s contention that none of the applied references
teaches or suggests an overlay message “including ‘clearance instructions
and information relating to a plurality of target aircraft’” (Appeal Br. 11)
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Barmore teaches
two-target interval management as a known ATC technique, or in the
Examiner’s rationale for utilizing this teaching in the combination (see Final
Act. 4).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over Stayton, Bone, and Barmore. Claims 3–5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15–17, and 19–
23 fall with claim 1.

Obviousness over Stayton, Bone, Barmore, and de Blanes
(Claims 6, 12, 18, and 24)
Claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 depend from independent claims 1, 7, 13,
and 19, respectively. Appellant merely states that de Blanes does not cure
the deficiencies of Stayton, Bone, and Barmore. Appeal Br. 12. However,
as Appellant has not apprised us of any deficiency in the rejection of the
independent claims, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 as
unpatentable over Stayton, Bone, Barmore, and de Blanes for the same
reasons as for the parent claims.
Appeal 2020-004735
Application 14/331,089

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7, 9–
11, 13, 15–
17, 19–23
103 Stayton, Bone,
Barmore
1, 3–5, 7,
9–11, 13,
15–17,
19–23

6, 12, 18, 24 103 Stayton, Bone,
Barmore, de
Blanes
6, 12, 18,
24

Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7,
9–13,
15–24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED