DASSAULT AVIATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 24, 2021

2020006159 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 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.
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