Ex Parte Davies

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13224464 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/224,464 09/02/2011
91753 7590 10/04/2016
General Electric Company
Global Patent Operation-Aviation
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Alun Davies
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
251368171966-0048 9494
EXAMINER
LEE JR, KENNETH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN ALUN DA VIES
Appeal2015-003863
Application 13/224,4641
Technology Center 2600
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-22, and 24--29. (Appeal Br. 2; Ans. 2.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to adjusting the brightness of a head
down display in the cockpit of an aircraft. A camera captures an image of at
least a portion of the cockpit within a viewing angle of the head down
1 Appellant identifies GE Aviation Systems Limited as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-003863
Application 13/224,464
display. A signal indicative of luminance information in the image is then
used in order to determine a brightness for the head down display.
(Abstract.)
Representative Claims
Claims L 8~ and 12, reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A cockpit for an aircraft comprising:
a windscreen having at least one transparent pane
through which light may pass;
at least one seat spaced from and facing the
windscreen;
a flight deck having at least a portion disposed
below the windscreen and having at least one head down
display having an adjustable brightness that may be set
by a brightness signal;
a camera having a field of view including at least a
portion of the at least one seat and outputting an image
signal indicative of luminance information within the
field of view; and
a processor operably coupled to the camera and the
head down display and configured to receive the image
signal, determine a luminance of at least a portion of the
field of view including the at least a portion of the at least
one seat, determine a brightness for the head down
display based on the determined luminance, and
outputting to the head down display a brightness signal
corresponding to the determined brightness.
8. A head down display assembly for a flight deck of
an aircraft, comprising:
a housing;
a head down display mounted within the housing
and having a viewing angle;
a camera carried by the housing and having a field
of view encompassing at least a portion of the viewing
angle of the head down display and outputting an image
2
Appeal2015-003863
Application 13/224,464
signal indicative of luminance information within the
field of view;
an image processor operably coupled to the camera
to receive the image signal and output a luminance signal
corresponding to the image signal; and
a graphics processor operably coupled to the image
processor and receiving the luminance signal and
correspondingly adjusting a brightness of the head down
display.
12. A method of adjusting a brightness level of at least
one head down display in a cockpit of an aircraft,
compnsmg:
taking an image of at least a portion of the cockpit
within a viewing angle of the head down display;
determining a luminance of at least a portion of the
image; and
setting the brightness level of the head down
display according to the determined luminance.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-22, and 24--29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Meldrum (US 6,867,751 Bl; Mar. 15, 2005)
and Wang et al. (US 2012/0169241 Al; July 5, 2012). (Final Action 2---6). 2
Issues
Appellant raises the following issues:
A: Did the Examiner err in combining Meldrum and Wang? (Appeal
Br. 9-11.)
2 In the Answer, Examiner has withdrawn the rejection as to claims 4 and
23, and indicated that the claims would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all limitations from parent and intervening
claims. (Answer 2.)
3
Appeal2015-003863
Application 13/224,464
B: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Meldrum and
Wang teaches or suggests "a camera having a field of view including at least
a portion of the at least one seat and outputting an image signal indicative of
luminance information within the field of view," as recited in claim 1; "a
camera carried by the housing and having a field of view encompassing at
least a portion of the viewing angle of the head down display and outputting
an image signal indicative of luminance information within the field of
view" as recited in claim 8; and "taking an image of at least a portion of the
cockpit within a viewing angle of the head down display;" as recited in
claim 12? (Appeal Br. 8-9, 11-13, and 15-18.)
ANALYSIS
Issue A: Meldrum and Wang
The Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided a reason to
combine Meldrum and Wang. (Appeal Br. 9.) Wang teaches the use of an
existing camera to capture an image and determine brightness according to
the captured image. (Wang i-f 9.) The Examiner finds that Meldrum teaches
the elements of claim 1, with the exception of the camera, which is taught by
Wang. (Final Action 2-3.) The Examiner finds that a motivation to
combine the references in this manner "would have been to decrease cost by
not having to include an additional photosensitive sensor." (Id. at 3.)
Appellant argues that the Examiner's motivation is a "conclusory
statement is not supportable in fact and is contradicted by the actual
references." (Appeal Br. 9.) However, we agree with the Examiner that
"[t]he electronic device of Wang detects environmental brightness and the
light sensor of Meldrum detects light received from a pilot's chair so
4
Appeal2015-003863
Application 13/224,464
substitution of parts could be obtained by one of ordinary skill in the art."
(Answer 3.) As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [ v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[, Inc. v.
Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative-a
court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
In this case, Wang teaches detection of environmental brightness
using a camera in place of a light sensor. The use of a camera in this way,
used with Meldrum's system, which includes a light sensor to detect
environmental brightness, is a predictable use of the elements disclosed in
the prior art. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
combining Meldrum and Wang.
Issue B: Claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner has erred in finding the
combination of Meldrum and Wang teaches or suggests the limitation from
claim 1 of "a camera having a field of view including at least a portion of the
at least one seat and outputting an image signal indicative of luminance
information within the field of view." (Appeal Br. 8-9, 11-13.) Appellant
argues that neither reference teaches a camera having a field of view
5
Appeal2015-003863
Application 13/224,464
including a portion of a cockpit seat, and that replacing Meldrum's light
sensor with a camera as in Wang would not teach or suggest the limitation
because Meldrum's light sensor receives remote light from outside the
aircraft. (Id.)
The Examiner cites Meldrum's light sensor, element 30, as the
element which, when combined with Wang's teaching of a camera as a light
sensor, teaches or suggests the disputed element. (Final Action 2-3.) Figure
1 of Meldrum is reproduced below:
FIG.1
Figure 1 of Meldrum illustrates a side view of an airplane cockpit.
(Meldrum 3:9-10.) Meldrum discloses that in Figure 1,
a display unit 10 faces the pilot's chair 20. A light sensor 30 is affixed
to the display unit 10 and configured to receive light from the area in
front of the pilot's chair 20. The display characteristics of the display
6
Appeal2015-003863
Application 13/224,464
unit 10, such as color, contrast, and intensity, are adjusted according
to the amount of light received by the light sensor 30.
(Id. 3:20-23.) In Meldrum, as shown in Figure 1, light sensor 30 also
receives remote light via first transmission line 60. (Id. 3:27-51.) However,
emission end 80 of the first transmission line "may abut the front of the light
sensor 30, or there may be a space between the first emission end 80 and the
light sensor 30." (Id. 3 :49-51.) Thus, in the embodiment as cited by the
Examiner, both light from the area in front of the display and remote light
reach the detector. (Final Action 2.)
The Meldrum specification also describes the prior art as including "a
light sensor, such as a photodiode, affixed to the display unit [that] detects
the light intensity level in a semi-defined area in front of the display and
generates an electrical signal proportional to the light intensity," which is
used to adjust display characteristics. (Id. 1 :44---62.) It is these elements, the
prior art discussed in ~,.1eldrt1m, \'l1hich the Examiner references in the
rejection. (Final Action 2.) Transmission line 60 is added, according to the
Meldrum invention, to transmit remote light to such a sensor in order to
allow the display adjustment to be based, "at least in part" on remote light.
(Meldrum 2:33--41.)
Thus, although Meldrum does teach sensing of remote light, as
discussed, Appellant is incorrect in the reading of Meldrum as teaching only
the sensing of remote light, which would require a combination to include
only "a camera that takes remote light (not within the immediate field of
view of the camera) and determines a remote light intensity based thereon."
(Appeal Br. 12.) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Final Action 2-3;
Answer 2-3) that substituting a camera for the light sensor 30 of Meldrum
7
Appeal2015-003863
Application 13/224,464
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. 3 With respect to
claims 8 and 12, Appellant similarly argues (Appeal Br. 16-18), that the
combination of the prior art references teaches a camera that determines a
remote light intensity, and that the field of view would not be taught to be
"encompassing at least a portion of the viewing angle of the head down
display" (claim 8) or "within a viewing angle of the head down display,"
(claim 12) and for the same reasons, we are not convinced of Examiner
error.
In view of the above, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 8 and 12, and of dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-11,
13-22, and 23-29, not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-22, and
24--29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Meldrum and Wang.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
3 Additionally, we note Wang teaches sensing environmental brightness
(Wang i-f 9), and we find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive because the
artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art
reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
8