Ex Parte He et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12845624 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/845,624
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
07/28/2010
03/02/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gang He
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.
H0026754 (002.2569) 1336
EXAMINER
HOANG, PHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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 GANG HE and THEA L. FEYEREISEN
Appeal2013-005106
Application 12/845,624 1
Technology Center 2600
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-8, 11, 12, 14--17, and 19-24. Claims 9, 10, 13,
and 18 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2013-005106
Application 12/845,624
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed subject matter displays information on a flight
deck display onboard an aircraft using visually distinguishable
characteristics to distinguish image data above an attitude reference from
image data below the attitude reference. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for displaying information on a display device
associated with a vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining image data for an imaging region proximate the
vehicle from an imaging device configured to capture imagery
corresponding to the imaging region;
displaying, on the display device, a graphical
representation of a first portion of the image data using a first
visually distinguishable characteristic, the first portion
corresponding to a portion of the image data above an attitude
reference; and
displaying, on the display device, a graphical
representation of a second portion of the image data using a
second visually distinguishable characteristic, the second
portion corresponding to a portion of the image data below the
attitude reference, wherein the first visually distinguishable
characteristic and the second visually distinguishable
characteristic are different.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hrabak (US 7,418,318 B2; Aug. 26,
2008) and Brady (US 2005/0278753 Al; published Dec. 15, 2005). Ans. 3-
9_2
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
10, 2012 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed December 21,
2012 ("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed February 20, 2013 ("Reply
Br.").
2
Appeal2013-005106
Application 12/845,624
The Examiner rejected claims 2-5, 8, 12, 14, 19, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hrabak, Brady, and Naimer (US
2008/0252489 Al; published Oct. 16, 2008). Id. at 9-16.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hrabak, Brady, and He (US 2007 /0085705 Al; published
Apr. 19, 2007). Id. at 16-17.
The Examiner rejected claims 15, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hrabak, Brady, Naimer, and He. Id. at 17-21.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We disagree with
Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-18 (mailed Apr. 11, 2012); accord Ans. 3-21); and (2) the
findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 21--43). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, 11,
12, 14--17, and 19-24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 11, 12, 14--
17, and 19-24.
3
Appeal2013-005106
Application 12/845,624
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4