11169452 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2013)

Ex Parte He

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 18, 2013

11169452 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GANG HE ____________ Appeal 2011-007610 Application 11/169,452 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge. Opinion concurring filed by SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 11-17, 19, 20, 27-34, and 43. The Examiner withdrew claims 1-10, 18, 21-26, and 35-42 from consideration. Claim 18 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-007610 Application 11/169,452 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 11, 19, and 27 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 11 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites: 11. A method for displaying lateral deviation symbology in offset approaches on a display associated with an aircraft, the method comprising: displaying an extended runway center line on the display, the extended runway center line corresponding to a center line of a runway; and displaying an approach line on the display, the approach line being based on one or more position points derived from signals corresponding to an offset approach to the runway received by the aircraft, wherein the approach line is offset from the extended runway center line such that the approach line provides a visual indication of the degree of offset between the offset approach and the center line of the runway. REJECTIONS Claims 11-13, 15, 19, 20, 27-30, 34, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lovering (US 4,368,517, iss. Jan. 11, 1983). Claims 14, 16, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lovering. Claims 17, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lovering and Taka (US 6,085, 145, iss. Jul. 4, 2000). Appeal 2011-007610 Application 11/169,452 3 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 11-13, 15, 19, 20, 27-30, 34, and 43 as anticipated by Lovering The Examiner finds that Lovering discloses displaying an “approach line offset from the extended runway center line” as recited in claim 11 when the term “approach line” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Ans. 10 (citing Lovering, col. 3, l. 54 to col. 4, l. 33; and Fig. 2b (element 15)). Appellant argues that velocity vector 15 does not constitute an “approach line.” App. Br. 15. We agree with Appellant in that the Examiner’s interpretation of “approach line” that encompasses velocity vector 15 is not reasonable in light of the Specification. While velocity vector 15 in Figure 2b, Position 1, may indicate that the aircraft’s approach path is offset from the runway center line (See also Lovering, col. 1, ll. 42- 47; Collins English Dictionary, (http://www.collinsdictionary.com /dictionary/english/approach) (Also called “approach path” the course followed by an aircraft preparing for landing.) (last visited Jul. 16, 2013)), the claimed “approach line” is not necessarily the course actually followed by a landing aircraft, but rather the intended path provided by the course guidance system of the airport. As explained in the Specification, airports use guidance systems (e.g., Instrument Landing System, ILS) to aid pilots in landing on runways. The guidance systems transmit signals to the aircraft which allow the on-board computer to generate and display an approach line which is ordinarily aligned with the center of the runway. Spec., para. [0002]. Sometimes, due to terrain or physical obstacles, the approach line transmitted is offset from the centerline of the runway in which case, the pilot must estimate when to stop following the approach line and visually realign with the center of the runway. Spec., paras. [0003]-[0004]. Thus, in Appeal 2011-007610 Application 11/169,452 4 offset landing situation, the “approach line” is the path intended for the aircraft up to a transition point at which time the pilot must deviate from the approach line and realign with the runway centerline. The claimed invention relates to these offset approaches and proposes that the on-board display show not only the offset approach line, but also the runway center line to better aid the pilot. Spec., para. [0008]; see also, Spec., para. [0020] (“embodiments of the present invention are applicable to any runway utilizing a runway assistance landing system (of which ILS is an example) that transmits a signal to an aircraft indicating an approach line to a runway that is offset from the runway’s true centerline.”); Spec., para. [0026]. Appellant also points out that it was well known that landing guidance systems generate the intended direction of flight. App. Br. 13, n.1 (citing Federal Aviation Administration Pilot/Controller Glossary which defines a “localizer”1 as “the component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway,” and defines “course” as the intended direction of flight in the horizontal plane. http://www.faa.gov/ai r_traffic/publications /atpubs/pcg (accessed by Appellant: August 31, 2010)). Moreover, paragraph [0025] at page 6 of the Specification states: As an aircraft initially approaches runway 205 for landing, the flight crew follows ILS approach line 220 until the aircraft reaches transition point 230. Upon reaching transition point 230, the flight crew adjusts the flight path of the aircraft to align the aircraft with extended runway center line 210 to complete the approach to runway 205. This paragraph supports that the claimed “approach line” cannot simply be the flight path followed by an aircraft since the flight path of the aircraft 1 Appellant mistakenly stated this was the definition of a “localizer type directional aid” rather than a “localizer.” Appeal 2011-007610 Application 11/169,452 5 ultimately is intended to deviate from approach line 220 at a certain transition point 230. The claimed approach line must be something different than the trajectory or flight path of the aircraft. See also Spec. 5, para. [0022] (“the aircraft should stop following the ILS approach line”); id. at 7, para. [0028] (“When the aircraft position reaches transition point 230, ILS approach line 220 no longer provides valid guidance for landing on runway 205. . . . [P]rocessor 130 stops displaying ILS approach line 220.”). Thus, we agree with Appellant that Lovering does not disclose “displaying an approach line on the display” as the term “approach line” is interpreted in light of Appellants’ Specification. Velocity vector 15 shown in Figure 2b, indicates the current position and speed of the aircraft. Velocity vector 15 may, therefore, depict the actual trajectory or flight path of the aircraft. There is no line depicted on the display in Figure 2b, however, of a path provided by the airport and intended to be followed by the aircraft (i.e., there is no “approach line” displayed). Therefore, the rejection of claims 11-13, 15, 19, 20, 27-30, 34, and 43 as anticipated by Lovering is not sustained. The rejection of claims 14, 16, and 31 as unpatentable over Lovering With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 14, 16, and 31, the Examiner makes no further findings with respect to displaying an approach line. See Ans. 7-8. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth supra, we likewise do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 14, 16, and 31 as unpatentable over Lovering. Appeal 2011-007610 Application 11/169,452 6 The rejection of claims 17, 32, and 33 as unpatentable over Lovering and Taka With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 17, 32, and 33, the Examiner does not find that the disclosure of Taka contributes displaying an approach line. See Ans. 8-9. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth supra, we likewise do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 17, 32, and 33 as unpatentable over Lovering and Taka. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 11-13, 15, 19, 20, 27-30, 34, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Lovering. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 14, 16, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lovering. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 17, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lovering and Taka. REVERSED Klh Appeal 2011-007610 Application 11/169,452 7 SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring. I do not join in the majority opinion. However, I concur in the result reached by the majority for the reasons explained infra. With respect to the conformal perspective view display 200 of an offset approach as depicted in Figure 2, Appellant’s Specification describes that “[f]or an offset approach runway, processor 130 notifies the flight crew of the existence of the offset approach by generating both an extended runway centerline 210 and an ILS approach line 220 on display 120.” Spec. 5, ll. 3-5. Appellant’s Specification also describes that View 200 further visually provides the flight crew with the location of transition point 230, where the aircraft must turn to align itself with runway 205 for landing. Transition point 230 indicates the point where extended runway centerline 210 and ILS approach line 220 intersect. As an aircraft initially approaches runway 205 for landing, the flight crew follows ILS approach line 220 until the aircraft reaches transition point 230. Upon reaching transition point 230, the flight crew adjusts the flight path of the aircraft to align the aircraft with extended runway center line 210 to complete the approach to runway 205. Spec. 6, para. [0025], ll. 1-7. Finally, Appellant’s Specification also describes that: Processor 130 then correlates the aircraft's current location (e.g. as determined by one or more of onboard GPS sensors 152 and inertial navigation system (INS) sensors 154) and runway 205 location data to compute where the aircraft is in relation to runway 205, and to compute the lateral deviation between the aircraft's current flight path and ILS approach line 220. A zero lateral deviation corresponds to a position on the approach line. Non-zero deviations correspond to positions having a known angle with respect to the approach line as measured from a lateral deviation source point. Processor 130 then generates the Appeal 2011-007610 Application 11/169,452 8 spatial position and orientation of the approach line and conformal lateral deviation symbology 240 with respect to the approach line, which displays to the flight crew the deviation between the aircraft[’]s current position (indicated by aircraft symbol 242) and ILS approach line 220. Spec, 6-7, para. [00026], ll. 14-23. Emphasis added. Lovering describes that “[t]he projected lateral flight path of the aircraft . . . depicted on the display device by means of a vector 15 emanating from the top of the aircraft symbol 14.” Lovering, col. 3, ll. 16- 18. It is well settled that we determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In view of the quoted passages from Appellant’s Specification supra, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Appellant’s Specification specifically distinguishes between the terms “aircraft’s current flight path” and “approach line.” Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Lovering’s projected lateral flight path and velocity vector 15 to correspond to the “aircraft’s current flight path,” and not to the “approach line.” Accordingly, I concur with the result reached by colleagues and I agree that the rejections of claims 11-13, 15, 19, 20, 27-30, 34, and 43 as anticipated by Lovering, claims 14, 16, and 31 as unpatentable over Lovering, and claims 17, 32, and 33 as unpatentable over Lovering and Taka should be reversed.