DASSAULT AVIATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 20212020006159 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/189,897 06/22/2016 Olivier BAUDSON 11000797.1048 9768 23280 7590 12/24/2021 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th Avenue 22nd Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2021 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): ddk@ddkpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OLIVIER BAUDSON and ARNAUD TURPIN, ____________ Appeal 2020-006159 Application 15/189,897 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 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 Dassault Aviation. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2020-006159 Application 15/189,897 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a display system of an aircraft able to display a localization marking of a zone of location of an approach light ramp. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A display system of an aircraft, comprising: a display unit; and a display generator for generating a display on the display unit, the display generator being configured to calculate a position of a localization marking on the display unit based on a predetermined relationship of the localization marking with respect to a geographical position of an approach light ramp toward a landing strip and to display, on approach to the landing strip, the localization marking at the calculated position on the display unit, the display unit being configured to allow a pilot to observe an area situated in front of the aircraft and simultaneously the localization marking generated by the display generator on the display unit, the localization marking being displayed on the display unit in the predetermined relationship with respect to the geographical position of the approach light ramp to define, in low visibility conditions, where the approach light ramp will appear on the display unit and to guide a pilot where the approach light ramp will appear on the display unit. (Appeal Br., Claims Appx. 1.) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 6, 10, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Baudson (US 2014/0097973 A1, pub. Apr. 10, 2014). (Final Act. 2–7.) Appeal 2020-006159 Application 15/189,897 3 The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 7–9, and 11–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Baudson and Sridhar (US 2015/0002316 A1, pub. Jan. 1, 2015). (Final Act. 7–11.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issues:2 Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Baudson disclosed the independent claim 1 requirement: the display generator being configured to calculate a position of a localization marking on the display unit based on a predetermined relationship of the localization marking with respect to a geographical position of an approach light ramp toward a landing strip . . . the localization marking being displayed on the display unit in the predetermined relationship with respect to the geographical position of the approach light ramp, and the commensurate requirements of independent claims 18 and 19. (Appeal Br. 6–8, 11–14.) Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Baudson and Sridhar taught or suggested the above limitation. (Appeal Br. 14–18.) 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 28, 2020) (herein, “Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 26, 2020) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 2, 2019) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 26, 2020) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective details. Appeal 2020-006159 Application 15/189,897 4 ANALYSIS Issue One For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Baudson of an aircraft cockpit “heads-up” display that superimposes a synthetic image of the terrain on top of the pilot’s view, but during the landing approach maintains an area covering the runway and an area in front of the runway “substantially free of any synthetic surface representation of the terrain.” (Final Act. 3–4; Baudson, Abstr., Fig. 3, ¶¶ 32, 71–73, 95, 122– 123, 147.) The Examiner relies on the fact that the dimensions of the front area are dynamically defined as a function of vertical position of the aircraft on approach to the runway, and that the approach light ramp is viewable within the front area. (Final Act. 3–4; Baudson Figs. 4, 6, ¶¶ 111–126, 153.) Appellant argues that nothing in Baudson discloses localization markings displayed in a “predetermined relationship with respect to” the position of the approach light ramp, and indeed the front area defined by Baudson is “without synthetic representations,” thus ruling out a display of localization markings. (Appeal Br. 7; Baudson ¶ 147.) Appellant argues that the front area is defined “solely by multiple of the decision height” (i.e., the point at which “the pilot, during the final approach, must go around, if he does not have all of the necessary visual references to continue the descent”). (Appeal Br. 8; Baudson ¶ 108, 144.) As Appellant points out, the approach light ramp in Baudson may be shifted longitudinally or transversally with regards to the front area, and so the front area has no predetermined relationship with the geographical position of the approach light ramp as required by the claims. (Appeal Br. 8.) Appeal 2020-006159 Application 15/189,897 5 In response, the Examiner repeats the reliance on the portions of Baudson referred to above, and specifically cites the disclosure in Baudson that the front area “may comprise a plurality of synthetic indicators.” (Ans. 4; Baudson ¶ 159.) We understand that, by this reference, the Examiner would equate the display of the boundaries of the front area to the claimed localization marking. In reply, Appellant points out that the boundaries of the front area, even if displayed, bear no predetermined relationship with the geographical position of the approach light ramp. (Reply Br. 4.) We agree with Appellant that there is no disclosure in Baudson of localization markings as required by the claims. In particular, any markings displayed in the Baudson system are determined by such criteria as the “decision height,” but not anything that relates to the geographical position of the approach light ramp. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 18, and 19 as anticipated by Baudson. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 10, and 17 as anticipated by Baudson, which claims depend from claim 1. (Appeal Br. 14.) Issue Two The Examiner rejects dependent claims 4, 5, 7–9, and 11–16 as obvious over Baudson and Sridhar. For example, claim 4 depends from independent claim 1 and additionally requires “the localization marking includes at least one series of lateral localization symbols on one side of where the approach light ramp will appear on the display unit, the series of lateral localization symbols converging toward a longitudinal axis of the runway.” (Appeal Br. 10, Claims Appx. 1.) The Examiner relies on Baudson for the disclosure of localization symbols as discussed above, but Appeal 2020-006159 Application 15/189,897 6 further relies on Sridhar in combination with Baudson as teaching or suggesting the additional details of claim 4, for example. (Final Act. 7–8.) Sridhar discloses an aircraft cockpit display that displays an image of the actual approach light ramp of an airport ramp that the aircraft is approaching. (Sridhar Abstr., Fig. 2, ¶¶ 23, 27.) The Examiner does not rely in Sridhar for the teaching of the required localization symbol of claim 1, but rather finds that, given the disclosure of such by Baudson, the additional requirements of claim 4 are taught by Sridhar. (Final Act. 7–8.) Because we are not persuaded that Baudson discloses localization symbols as claimed for the reasons discussed above, we are also not persuaded by the Examiner’s obviousness analysis with respect to the dependent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 5, 7–9, and 11–16 as obvious over Baudson and Sridhar. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6, 10, 17–19 102(a)(1) Baudson 1–3, 6, 10, 17–19 4, 5, 7–9, 11–16 103 Baudson, Sridhar 4, 5, 7–9, 11–16 Overall Outcome 1–19 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation