Ex Parte Elchynski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

11733349 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
11/733,349 04/10/2007 Joseph J. Elchynski H0011367-5822/
400.1246U
8020
89953 7590 03/29/2017
HONFYWFT T /FOGG
EXAMINER
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
MANCHO, RONNIE M
P.O. Box 377 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
MUKK1S LI .A1IN.S, JNJ U/SOU 3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docket@fogglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH J. ELCHYNSKI
Appeal 2015-004817
Application 11/733,349
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joseph J. Elchynski (Appellant)1 2appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s April 24, 2014 final decision rejecting claims 1—6 and 8—13.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 7 and 14 are canceled. Id. at 11, 13 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2015-004817
Application 11/733,349
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure relates to “providing navigation guidance to
pilots that are landing in low visibility conditions and/or at airports that do
not contain a ground infrastructure in place to support [a] precision
approach.” Spec. 2:4—6. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 11 (Claims
Appendix) of the Appeal Brief3, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A navigation system, comprising in combination:
a navigation processor that provides as an output a
navigation solution; and
a Kalman filter that receives data from a GPS sensor and
the navigation solution from the navigation processor, and
estimates navigation corrections that are provided to the
navigation processor, wherein the Kalman filter uses a dynamic
range error model that changes as a function of ephemeris age,
wherein the dynamic range model weighs measurements from
satellites with newer ephemeris more than satellites with older
ephemeris, wherein the ephemeris is uploaded from a control
segment to the GPS satellite, the control segment determining
satellite orbits and updating the navigation messages of the
satellites.
REJECTION
Claims 1—6 and 8—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Diesel (US 6,094,607, iss. July 25, 2000), Han (US
2008/0111738 Al, pub. May 15, 2008), and Tekawy (US 2008/0154502 Al,
pub. June 26, 2008).
3 We note that the pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered. Our
citations herein to the Appeal Brief refer to consecutive page numbering
starting with the first page.
2
Appeal 2015-004817
Application 11/733,349
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Diesel discloses a navigation system
substantially as claimed in independent claim 1, including a Kalman filter
that uses a dynamic range error model, but “does not discuss its usage
regarding ‘ephemeris upload age’ as claimed” or uploading ephemeris from
a control segment. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that Han teaches a
navigation system including a Kalman filter with a dynamic range error
model that weighs measurements from satellites with newer ephemeris more
than satellites with older ephemeris, and reasons that it would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art “to modify Diesel as
taught by Han for the purpose of improving accuracy in the position
calculation using age of ephemeris.” Id. at 3 (citing Han, || 8, 18, 26, 39,
42, 43, 47, 48, Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that Tekawy teaches a
global positioning system (GPS) in which ephemeris is uploaded from a
control segment, and reasons that it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to upload ephemeris similarly to “provid[e]
compatibility with GPS/GNSS systems” and to “provid[e] long-term
navigational information including many sets of ephemeris which
advantageously removes other unpredictable perturbations by daily
uploading the ephemeris.” Id.
Appellant argues that Han does not teach a Kalman filter that weighs
measurements from satellites with newer ephemeris more than satellites with
older ephemeris because Han “does not discuss weighing measurements
from different satellites.” App. Br. 6—7. Appellant contends that “Han is
directed to ‘a standalone navigation receiver. . and its mathematical
model “is directed to predicting the orbit and position of a single satellite at
3
Appeal 2015-004817
Application 11/733,349
a time.” Id. at 7 (citing Han, H 29, 39, 42, 43). Appellant further argues
that “the position fix module [of Han] uses the predicted ephemeris, as
opposed to actual broadcast ephemeris, to determine the position of the
satellites when the system is not in communication with the satellite.” Id.
at 9.
The Examiner responds by interpreting the term weighs as used in
claim 1 to mean “gives preference to” or “attaches importance to.” Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds this interpretation to be consistent with Appellant’s use
thereof in the Specification. Id. (citing Spec., 15:12—19). The Examiner
determines that in a manner similar to Appellant, Han “discloses a similar
Kalman filter which calculates a more accurate GPS navigation solution by
using ephemeris data that is newer compared to ephemeris data that is older.
Han emphasizes . . . the necessity to use current or newer ephemeris to get a
better or precise GPS navigation solution.” Id. at 6 (citing Han, H 8, 39,
47). The Examiner also finds that Han teaches: a weight matrix in its
Kalman filter “wherein ephemeris that is newer is used in calculating a GPS
navigation solution better than ephemeris data that is older” {id. (citing Han,
11 8, 39)); the use of four GPS satellites to compute a navigation position
{id. at 8 (citing Han, H 3, 26, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47)); and a standalone
navigation receiver that weighs ephemeris data as recited in claim 1 {id.).
Appellant replies by agreeing with the Examiner’s construction of the
term weighs. Reply Br. 3. Appellant asserts, however, that Han does not
disclose “giving preference to ‘measurements from satellites with newer
ephemeris more than measurements from satellites with older ephemeris I”
4
Appeal 2015-004817
Application 11/733,349
Id. at 4. Appellant also argues that Han’s mathematical model “predicts the
position of a single satellite.” Id. at 5.
Han recognizes that “[a] GPS receiver uses . . . down-loaded
ephemeris to accurately compute the position of. . . visible satellites. Based
on these satellite positions, the position of the receiver is estimated. This
computed position is more accurate if the ephemeris used is current.” Han
122. “Thus, it is always necessary to download and use current ephemeris
to minimize . . . position error and the [receiver Time-To-First-Fix (TTFF)].”
Id. However, because “it is not always possible to have current ephemeris in
the memory of the GPS receiver” and because “new ephemeris download
from each of the satellites involved . . . may require eighteen seconds or
more for each satellite after the start of the signal tracking process,” Han
“provides techniques to generate sets of more precise ephemeris that are
valid over a larger time interval.” Id. 22—23.
Han’s technique uses a “set of present and historical broadcast
ephemeris and measurements” to “build satellite orbit models to fit the
historical data. These models are then used to predict the Satellite Vehicle
(SV) orbit and simultaneously generate . . . predicted ephemeris.” Id. 123.
This predicted ephemeris is then filtered and used to determine the receiver
position. Id. 148.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Han uses a weight matrix in its
mathematical model to mitigate errors associated with the use of older
ephemeris. Ans. 6—7 (citing Han, 139). However, as correctly noted by
Appellants, “the mathematical model of Han predicts the position of a single
satellite.” Reply Br. 5 (citing Han, || 37, 39). Indeed, Han’s technique
5
Appeal 2015-004817
Application 11/733,349
predicts the orbit and position for each satellite position, discretely, and then
the collection of predicted satellite positions is used to determine receiver
location. See Han || 41—45, 48. Claim 1 requires the dynamic range error
model to weigh measurements from various satellites based on the age of the
ephemeris in each satellite. See App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x). This, Han
does not do. The Examiner interprets ephemeris age in the abstract rather
than as required by claim 1. See Reply Br. 4. The Examiner does not direct
us to, nor do we find any indication that Han weighs measurements from
different satellites based on ephemeris age as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of its
dependent claims 2—6 and 8, as being unpatentable over Diesel, Han, and
Tekawy.
Independent claims 9 and 10 each recite “wherein the dynamic range
model weighs measurements from satellites with newer ephemeris more than
satellites with older ephemeris” similarly to claim 1. App. Br. 12 (Claims
App’x). Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above with respect
to the rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 9
and 10, nor of claims 11—13 that depend from claim 10, as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Diesel, Han, and Tekawy.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6 and 8—13 is reversed.
REVERSED
6