Ex Parte 7161525 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2014

95001860 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2014)

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.
95/001,860 12/23/2011 7161525 143925.90 7396
7590 10/17/2014
ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.
ATTENTION: KYLE EPPELE
M/S 124-323
400 COLLINS RD. NE
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52498
EXAMINER
CABRERA, ZOILA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
Requester and Respondent

v.

ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1
Technology Center 3900

____________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DENISE M. POTHIER, and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Requester appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) (2013) from the final
decision of the Examiner favorable to the patentability of claims 1, 5-7, 11,
12, 21-26, 29, and 31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (2002).
We reverse.
Invention
United States Patent No. 7,161,525 (“the ’525 patent”) describes a
method for displaying turbulent weather. Data is processed representative of
weather conditions within a predefined area. Weather conditions are
displayed on a display. Turbulence is detected within the predefined area.
A level of the detected turbulence is detected. First graphical elements are
superimposed upon the display of weather conditions when the level of the
detected turbulence is less than a predetermined amount. A second
graphical element is displayed upon the display of weather conditions when
the level of the detected turbulence is more than the predetermined amount.
Figure 2 of the ’525 patent, reproduced below, is said to depict a
display output according to the invention.

Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

3

As described in the ’525 patent at column 3, lines 27-49:
The display output 22 shown in FIG. 2 displays a weather
system 24 having green, yellow, and red-shaded regions 26, 28,
30 representing slight, moderate, and high levels of weather
severity, respectively. Also shown is an area 32a where conditions
indicative of slight turbulence are present. Slight turbulence may
be defined as turbulence causing little discomfort to passengers
and no damage to the aircraft. Slight turbulence area 32a is
represented by a plurality of graphical elements, which in the
preferred embodiment are displayed as a randomly distributed
group of magenta-colored spots. As the intensity of the detected
turbulence increases, the density of the magenta-colored spots
increases as well, as shown by moderate turbulence area 32b.
Moderate turbulence may be defined as turbulence causing some
discomfort to passengers of the aircraft. The speckled pattern of
spots representing turbulence areas 32a and 32b are shown as
overlaying upon yellow-shaded region 28. When slight or
moderately turbulent conditions are detected in a red-shaded region
of high weather severity such as region 30 in FIG. 2, the size of the
magenta-colored spots 32c representing such turbulent area are
slightly increased to enable the turbulent conditions to be more
easily identified by a viewer of the display.

Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

4

Claims
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-14, 17, 19, 21-26, 29, and 31 are subject to
reexamination and have been found patentable. Claims 27, 28, and 30 have
been rejected and are not appealed by Patent Owner. Claims 1-20 are
original patent claims. Claims 21-31 are proposed new claims. Claims 1, 7,
21, 23, 24, 26, 29, and 31 are independent.

Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A method of displaying areas of turbulent weather,
comprising:

processing data representative of weather conditions
within a predefined area;

displaying the weather conditions on a display;

detecting turbulence within the predefined area;

determining a level of the detected turbulence;

superimposing first graphical elements upon the
display of weather conditions when the level of the
detected turbulence is less than a predetermined
amount; and

superimposing a second graphical element upon the
display of weather conditions when the level of the
detected turbulence is more than the predetermined
amount,

wherein the first graphical elements are a plurality of
dots superimposed upon the display of weather
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

5
conditions, wherein a number of the plurality of dots
increases as the level of the detected turbulence
increases up to the predetermined amount.

Prior Art
Feyereisen US 6,289,277 B1 Sept. 11, 2001
Muller US 5,839,080 Nov. 17, 1998

Daryal Kuntman and Tim Stansbury, Turbulence Detection and Avoidance
System, FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION 53RD INTERNATIONAL AIR SAFETY
SEMINAR (Oct. 29, 2000) (hereinafter “Kuntman”)
Daryal Kuntman, 5( 2) Airborne System to Address Leading Cause of
Injuries in Non-Fatal Airline Accidents, ICAO JOURNAL (March 2000)
(hereinafter “ICAO Journal”)
Honeywell, RDR-4B: FORWARD LOOKING WINDSHEAR
DETECTION/WEATHER RADAR SYSTEM USER’S MANUAL WITH RADAR
OPERATION GUIDELINES (Rev. 6 July 2003) (hereinafter “RDR-4B Manual”)

Requester’s Contentions

Requester contends that the Examiner erred in failing to enter the
following grounds of rejection (Req. App. Br. 8):
A. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Feyereisen;
B. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuntman and Feyereisen;
C. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the ICAO Journal and Feyereisen;
D. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21-26, 29, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the RDR-4B Manual and
Feyereisen;
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

6
E. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21-26, 29, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the RDR-4B Manual and Muller;
F. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 12, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuntman and Muller;
G. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21-26, 29, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Background of the Invention of
the ’525 Patent and Feyereisen;
H. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21-26, 29, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Background of the Invention of
the ’525 Patent and Muller;
I. The rejection of claims 21 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kuntman;
J. The rejection of claims 21 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the ICAO Journal;
K. The rejection of claims 21, 23, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the RDR-4B Manual and Kuntman;
L. The rejection of claims 21, 23, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the RDR-4B Manual and the ICAO Journal;
M. The rejection of claims 21, 23, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the Background of the Invention of the ’525 Patent and
Kuntman; and,
N. The rejection of claims 21 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the Background of the Invention of the ’525 Patent and
the ICAO Journal.
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

7
ANALYSIS
We begin with an analysis of Requester’s proposed ground of
rejection E, that is, a rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21-26, 29, and 31 (all
claims under appeal) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
RDR-4B Manual and Muller.
Requester notes that the Examiner initially adopted proposed ground
of rejection E but did not maintain that rejection after Owner amended
claims 1 and 7 to incorporate the subject matter of claims 2 and 8. Req.
App. Br. 20-21. Requester urges that the Examiner erred in failing to
maintain proposed ground of rejection E.
In support of proposed ground of rejection E, Requester points out
that the RDR-4B Manual discloses superimposing an indication of
turbulence on a weather display in a radar display. The RDR-4B Manual, at
page 60, illustrates the depiction of weather in red, yellow and green, with
turbulence superimposed thereon in magenta. See RDR-4B Manual, 56-57,
60. Consequently, Requester urges that the RDR-4B Manual completely
discloses the base concept of displaying turbulence superimposed on a
weather display within a radar system. Req. App. Br 21.
Next, Requester points out that Muller discloses indicating a threat
due to terrain proximity by utilizing a series of dot patterns where the
density of the pattern varies with different levels of threat. Requester cites
Figure 25 and column 22, lines 4-14 of Muller, wherein Muller describes a
dot pattern where the density of the dot pattern varies as a function of the
difference between the altitude of the aircraft and the altitude of the terrain.
Id. at 22.
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

8
In the Right of Appeal Notice the Examiner agrees with Owner,
noting that Muller merely discloses the utilization of a dot pattern to disclose
the height of terrain but “does not disclose, teach or suggest using the
disclosed dot patters (sic) to represent weather hazards of any kind,
including different levels of detected turbulence.” RAN 18.
The Examiner also adopts the Owner’s position that the “RDR-4B
Manual appears to disclose using a solid region to represent turbulence and
provides no teaching or suggestion to modify Muller such that the dot
patterns were used to represent different levels of turbulence.” Id.
Finally, the Examiner and Owner further argue that:
[T]here is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine the
RDR-4B Manual with Muller because Muller only teaches
displaying terrain threats with the dot pattern. Patentee
concludes that neither the RDR-4B Manual nor Muller provide
any reason to improve or modify a weather display system
including multiple levels of turbulence data to look to the
terrain awareness system of Muller that uses dot patterns only
to represent the relative height of terrain with respect to the
altitude of the aircraft.
Id.
We find that the RDR-4B Manual discloses the display of weather
conditions and turbulence within a predefined area, with the display of the
turbulence overlaid (superimposed) in red or magenta over the weather
display. RDR-4B Manual, 57.
Consequently, we find that the RDR-4B Manual discloses each
feature of independent claims 1, 7, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, and 31, but for the
claimed feature of utilizing a plurality of dots which varies in density with
the intensity of the turbulence, as set forth in claims 1, 7, and 31, or the
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

9
feature of superimposing first graphical elements upon the displayed weather
conditions when turbulence is less than a predetermined amount such that
weather conditions are displayed within the space between the first graphical
elements and superimposing a second graphical element when the turbulence
is more than the predetermined amount.
Turning to Muller, we find that reference would have provided a
suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a superimposed dot
pattern in an avionics system to provide additional information regarding
specific terrain threats without obscuring the display of background terrain
information and while indicating the severity of the threat by varying the
density of the superimposed dot pattern. See Muller 22:4-14; Fig. 25.
A reason to combine teachings from the prior art “may be found in
explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the
ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the
problem to be solved.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d
1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 1998)).
“The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings,
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem
to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir 2000)).

[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion
may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the
‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

10
references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for
example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter,
smaller, more durable, or more efficient. . . . In such situations, the
proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge
and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art
references.

DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
We find that the RDR-4B Manual clearly teaches the desirability of
superimposing a turbulence indication upon a weather display and, further,
that Muller teaches the desirability of utilizing a graphic element to show the
severity of threats that does not obscure the background image. That is,
given that the turbulence discussed in RDR-4B Manual is a type of threat, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized using various known
formats to display such threats to the user, including the variable density dot
format taught by Muller as an indication of a terrain threat. See Request 41-
42.
For those claims rejected under RDR-4B Manual that are not argued,
we adopt the findings and conclusions set forth by Requester. See Request
40-48 and Requester’s May 30, 2012 Comments after Non-Final Action 29-
33.
We, therefore, find that the Examiner erred in failing to maintain the
rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21-26, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the RDR-4B Manual and Muller.

In view of our decision to reverse the Examiner’s decision not to
adopt the rejection of all claims on appeal (Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, 21-26, 29,
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

11
and 31) as set forth above, we decline to address those alternate rejections
asserted by Requester. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (ITC can decide a single dispositive issue of numerous issues
resolved by the presiding officer; there is no need for the Commission to
decide all issues decided by the presiding officer).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision not to adopt the rejection of claims 1, 5-7,
11, 12, 21-26, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
RDR-4B Manual and Muller is reversed.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(a), the above-noted reversal constitutes
a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) states that “[a]ny decision
which includes a new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall
not be considered final for judicial review.” Furthermore,
When the Board makes a new ground of
rejection, the owner, within one month from the
date of the decision, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new
ground of rejection to avoid termination of the
appeal proceeding as to the rejected claim:
(1) Reopen prosecution. The owner may file
a response requesting reopening of prosecution
before the examiner. Such a response must be
either an amendment of the claims so rejected or
new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or
both.
(2) Request rehearing. The owner may
request that the proceeding be reheard under
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

12
§ 41.79 by the Board upon the same record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground
of rejection and state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or
overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection
and also state all other grounds upon which
rehearing is sought.
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(a)(1), the “[p]arties to the
appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of
the date of: . . . [t]he original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a).” A
request for rehearing must be in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b).
Comments in opposition to the request and additional requests for rehearing
must be in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(c)-(d), respectively. Under 37
C.F.R. § 41.79(e), the times for requesting rehearing under paragraph (a) of
this section, for requesting further rehearing under paragraph (c) of this
section, and for submitting comments under paragraph (b) of this section
may not be extended.
An appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141-144 and 315 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.983 for an
inter partes reexamination proceeding “commenced” on or after November
2, 2002 may not be taken “until all parties’ rights to request rehearing have
been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and
appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.81. See
also MPEP § 2682 (8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

13
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956 (2011). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.79 (2011). In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within
the time provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

REVERSED

peb
Appeal 2014-007048
Reexamination Control 95/001,860
Patent US 7,161,525 B1

14
Patent Owner:

ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.
ATTENTION: KYLE EPPELE
M/S 124-323
400 COLLINS RD. NE
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52498

Third Party Requester:

OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850