Ex Parte Hamblin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

13053981 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/053,981
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
03/22/2011
05/31/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chris Hamblin
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.
H0028641 (002.2594) 9259
EXAMINER
DAGER, JONATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS HAMBLIN, STEPHEN WHITLOW,
MICHAEL CHRISTIAN DORNEICH, and
WILLIAM ROGERS
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chris Hamblin et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20, which
are the only claims pending in the present application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for improving aircraft pilot situational awareness,
comprising the steps of:
receiving datalink messages in an aircraft;
receiving automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast
(ADS-B) data in the aircraft;
processing the received datalink messages; processing the
received ADS-B data;
generating a spatial and temporal situational model for the
aircraft based on the processed datalink messages and the
processed ADS-B data; and
rendering at least a portion of the spatial and temporal
situational model on a display device within the aircraft,
wherein the rendered portion of the spatial and temporal
situational model comprises:
at least a portion of the current flight plan for the
aircraft,
a plurality of time-interval icons on at least a portion of
the rendered current flight plan, each time interval icon
rendered (i) at a position on the current flight plan
representative of a relative time interval to reach the
position represented by the time-interval icon and (ii) with
a relative size that is representative of a probability of
correctness of the relative time interval.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuntman
(US 2002/0075171 Al, pub. June 20, 2002), Morizet
(US 7,280,896 B2, iss. Oct. 9, 2007), and De Menorval
(US 2008/0228333 Al, pub. Sept. 18, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
IL Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuntman, Morizet, De Menorval, and King
(US 2005/0156777 Al, pub. July 21, 2005).
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellants argue for patentability of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17,
19, and 20 subject to this ground of rejection as a group. Appeal Br. 14--15.
We select claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-13,
15-17, 19, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The rejection of claim 1 is grounded on a combination of the
teachings of Kuntman, Morizet, and De Menorval. Final Act. 2-3.
Appellants allege error in the rejection because, according to Appellants,
"Kuntman does not disclose generating a spatial and temporal situational
model for the aircraft based on processed datalink messages and processed
ADS-B data" and "Morizet does not disclose rendering a spatial and
temporal situational model." Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 4 (asserting
that "neither Kuntman nor Morizet disclose or even remotely suggest
generating this alleged spatial and temporal model based on processed
datalink messages and processed ADS-B data").
Appellants appear to be attacking Kuntman and Morizet individually,
rather than as combined by the Examiner, and, thus, even if correct, do not
show error in the rejection. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
3
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner did not find that either Kuntman or Morizet discloses
generating a spatial and temporal model based on processed datalink
messages and processed ADS-B data. The Examiner found that Kuntman
discloses the method of claim 1, including, in pertinent part, "receiving and
processing datalink messages and ADS-B data in an aircraft" and
"generating a spatial situational model for the aircraft based on the processed
messages and data." Final Act. 2. Kuntman supports this finding by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Kuntman, Figs. 8A-J (each depicting a
rendering of a spatial model including an icon of a target aircraft); para. 114
(describing Fig. 8A); para. 11 (disclosing receipt of data link messages to
and/or from other aircraft); para. 29 (disclosing use of TCAS and Mode-S
sensor and data link technologies to enable displays providing information
both internal and external to the host aircraft to provide the pilot with better
situation awareness); para. 97 (disclosing receipt and processing of Mode-S
transponder reply signal and ADS-B data from intruder aircraft). The
Examiner acknowledged:
Kuntman does not disclose generating a spatial and temporal
situational model or rendering a portion of the spatial and
temporal model, wherein the rendered portion comprises a
portion of the current flight plan of the aircraft with a plurality of
time-interval icons on the flight plan, each icon at a position
representative of a relative time interval to reach the position, or
with a relative size that is representative of a probability of
correctness of the relative time interval.
Final Act. 2.
The Examiner found that "Morizet discloses generating and rendering
a spatial and temporal situational model for an aircraft, including a future
trajectory of the current flight plan delineated into time intervals, wherein
4
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
the time intervals are points along the rendered flight plan at positions
representative of a relative time interval to reach them." Id. at 3. The
Examiner then determined:
It would have been obvious to modify Kuntman to generate and
render a spatial and temporal model based on the messages and
data, by adding a future trajectory of the current flight plan of the
host aircraft with time-interval icons at positions representative
of a relative time interval to reach the icon position, for the
advantage of providing the pilot with more situational
information.
Id. (citing Morizet, Fig. 9; col. 10, 11. 16-21; col. 11, 11. 1-9).
The Examiner found that "De Menorval discloses, on an aircraft
display indicating future trajectory points, displaying an icon [(26, 27, and
32 in Fig. 4)] with a relative size indicating the probability of accuracy or
correctness of the relative time interval at that point." Id. (citing De
Menorval, paras. 50-52, 147-152). In light of that teaching, the Examiner
determined "[i]t would have been obvious to further modify Kuntman to
have the rendered time-interval icons with a relative size representative of a
probability of correctness of the relative time interval for the advantage of
informing the pilot of possible error in the trajectory point prediction." Id.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that De Menorval
"discloses displaying an icon with a relative size indicating the probability of
accuracy or correctness of the relative time interval at that point." Appeal
Br. 11. Appellants urge that De Menorval is concerned with aircraft
guidance "by depicting time constraints and displaying the ability of an
aircraft to arrive at a particular location at a particular point in time." Id.
According to Appellants, De Menorval "is displaying an error margin of the
5
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
ability to meet a constraint in time; conversely, the instant invention displays
a degree of location uncertainty in space." Id. at 12.
As stated by our reviewing court, "the name of the game is the claim."
In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claim 1 does not
recite displaying a degree of location uncertainty in space. Rather, claim 1
calls for the rendered portion of the spatial and temporal situational model to
comprise, in pertinent part:
a plurality of time-interval icons ... each ... rendered (i) at a
position ... representative of a relative time interval to reach the
position represented by the time-interval icon and (ii) with a
relative size that is representative of a probability of correctness
of the relative time interval.
Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. (emphasis added).
De Menorval discloses displaying on a display screen to the pilot of
an aircraft, for any particular checkpoint, an icon (reliability R TA window
26) consisting of a thick solid line denoting the range of possible passage
times (27), taking into account maximum headwind and tailwind errors for a
selected reliability level and the complete range of air speed criteria, and
error margins (32) to either side of passage times (27). De Menorval, paras.
49-52, 134--137, 148-152; Fig. 4. The thick solid line denoting the range of
possible passage times represents the intersection of the range of possible
passage times assuming a maximum headwind and the range of possible
passage times assuming a maximum tailwind. Id., paras. 133-136; Fig. 2.
Thus, the size of this solid line will vary depending on the range of
headwind and tailwind error selected, which is associated with the required
reliability level. See id., Figs. 2, 3; para. 124. "The size of the range of
winds concerned directly corresponds to the reliability level with which the
time constraint must be observed with an accuracy (or accuracy level) equal
6
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
to said error margin value." Id., para. 126. Thus, De Menorval discloses
displaying an icon with a relative size that is representative of a probability
of accuracy or correctness of the time interval to reach the checkpoint (i.e.,
position).
Appellants contend that "the Examiner has not provided a factual
basis or articulated reasoning that the invention encompassed by [claim 1]
resulted from" any one of six enumerated indicia of obviousness. Appeal
Br. 15. This argument fails to apprise us of error in the rejection for two
reasons. First, 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not require that the articulated
reasoning supporting the conclusion of obviousness be pigeonholed into one
of the categories enumerated by Appellants. Rejections on obviousness
grounds must be supported by "some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning" to combine the known elements in the manner
required in the claim at issue. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). Second, the Examiner's articulated reasons for combining the
references do happen to fall into one or more of the categories enumerated
by Appellants.
As discussed above, the Examiner articulated a reason (i.e., providing
the pilot with more situational awareness) for combining Morizet' s teaching
of generating and rendering a spatial and temporal model including a future
trajectory of the current flight plan having time-interval icons at positions
representative of a relative time interval to reach the icon position with
Kuntman' s model by generating and rendering a spatial and temporal model
including both the information in Morizet's model and the information in
Kuntman's model. This articulated reasoning has rational underpinnings.
7
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
See Kuntman, para. 29 (disclosing that displays providing "information both
internal and external to the aircraft" should "provide the pilot with better
situation awareness"); Morizet, col. 10, 11. 16-20 (pointing out that "[t]he
presentation of [the future] trajectory helps to improve the situational
awareness of the pilot"). Moreover, the proposed combination amounts to
combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results or applying a known technique to a known method ready
for the improvement.
Similarly, the Examiner articulated a reason (i.e., informing the pilot
of possible error in the trajectory point prediction) for rendering the time-
interval icons of Kuntman/Morizet with a relative size representative of a
probability of accuracy or correctness of the relative time interval, as taught
by De Menorval. This articulated reasoning has rational underpinnings.
See, e.g., De Menorval, para. 13 (highlighting the fact that parameters, such
as wind, taken into account in calculating guidance instructions for aircraft
"can be unreliable" and that "the difference between the entered values and
the actual values can be fairly great"). Moreover, the proposed combination
amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to
yield predictable results or applying a known technique to a known method
ready for the improvement.
Finally, in addition to the "why," discussed above, Appellants assert
that the Examiner has not solved the "mystery" of "how this modification
would be done to achieve his stated advantages," and, more specifically,
how a skilled artisan would have modified "what is rendered in FIG. 9 of
Morizet to include the information in FIG. 4 ofDeMenorval." Reply Br. 7.
The modification proposed by the Examiner is not mysterious. The
8
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
Examiner proposes that each of Morizet' s points 32 be displayed instead as
an icon (RT A window) as taught by De Menorval with a size that is
representative of a probability of correctness of the relative time interval,
taking into account the uncertainty of winds, for example. Appellants do not
point us to any evidence in the record before us, or provide any technical
explanation, to suggest that the combination proposed by the Examiner
would have been uniquely challenging to, or beyond the technical grasp of, a
person having ordinary skill in the art.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Kuntman, Morizet, and De
Menorval. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 3,
5-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20, which fall with claim 1.
Rejection II
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for patentability of
claims 4 and 14, aside from their dependence from claims 1 and 11,
respectively. Appeal Br. 15. Thus, for the reasons set forth above,
Appellants also fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claims 4 and 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 14 as unpatentable
over Kuntman, Morizet, De Menorval, and King.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
9
Appeal2014-004792
Application 13/053,981
AFFIRMED
10