Ex Parte Ishihara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2017

11470188 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 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.
11/470,188 09/05/2006 Yasuo Ishihara H0011397 (002.2794) 7642
89955 7590 09/15/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
SMALL, NAOMI J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2017 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
docketing @LKGlobal.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YASUO ISHIHARA, STEVE C. JOHNSON, and
KEVIN J. CONNER
Appeal 2017-001435
Application 11/470,188
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-001435
Application 11/470,188
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 21—34, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
21. A method for advising of flying condition when an aircraft
flies through approach gates, the method comprising:
a) automatically receiving one or more flight parameters
at a first approach gate, the first approach gate being a first
predetermined number of feet above at least one of an intended
runway or a radio altimeter value;
b) automatically determining if any of the one or more
flight parameters are not in compliance with a corresponding
predefined limit;
c) automatically outputting an associated advisory if it
was determined that one or more of the flight parameters was
not in compliance with the corresponding predefined limit;
d) automatically repeating a)-c) until the aircraft reaches
a second approach gate, the second approach gate is a second
predetermined number of feet above at least one of the intended
runway or the radio altimeter value, the second predetermined
number of feet less than the first predetermined number of feet;
e) automatically determining if any of the one or more
flight parameters are not in compliance with the corresponding
predefined limit; and
f) automatically outputting an unstable advisory if it was
determined that one or more of the flight parameters is not in
compliance with the corresponding predefined limit after the
aircraft reaches the second approach gate, wherein the unstable
advisory is different than the associated advisory.
2
Appeal 2017-001435
Application 11/470,188
Prior Art
Bateman 4,030,065 June 14, 1977
King 4,792,906 Dec. 20, 1988
Ryan US 2004/0167685 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 21—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ryan, King, and Bateman.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer.
We address the following arguments from Appellants’ Reply Brief to
complete the record.
Claim 21 recites
automatically outputting an associated advisory if it was
determined that one or more of the flight parameters was not in
compliance with the corresponding predefined limit; [and]
automatically outputting an unstable advisory if it was
determined that one or more of the flight parameters is not in
compliance with the corresponding predefined limit after the
aircraft reaches the second approach gate, wherein the unstable
advisory is different than the associated advisory.
Paragraph 16 of Appellants’ Specification discloses a processing
device that receives air speed, tailwind, and approach angle values, and, if
any of the received values is outside of a limit, outputs an appropriate
advisory if the aircraft is above a second approach gate (such as 500 feet
3
Appeal 2017-001435
Application 11/470,188
above the runway). Paragraph 17 of Appellants’ Specification discloses
examples of an appropriate advisory as “too fast,” “too high,” and
“tailwind.” Paragraph 17 also discloses that if the aircraft is below 500 feet,
and at least one of the values is outside of the limit, the device outputs an
unstable advisory. Appellants’ Specification as originally filed does not
disclose whether or how the claimed “unstable advisory” is any “different
than the associated advisory” as recited in claim 21.
The Examiner finds Bateman teaches a landing gear warning that is
different than the excessive tailwind or crosswind advisory taught by Ryan.
Ans. 3. Appellants contend Bateman and Ryan each teach monitoring
different flight parameters at different altitudes, but do not teach monitoring
the same parameters at different altitudes for compliance with the same
corresponding limits as claimed. Reply Br. 5—6. According to Appellants,
Bateman teaches generating three different warnings at three different
altitudes in disclosing (a) a too low gear warning below 500 feet, (b) a too
low flaps warning below 200 feet, and (c) a too low terrain warning below
1,000 feet. Reply Br. 5.
However, Appellants’ contention that Bateman only generates a gear
warning at 500 feet is inconsistent with Bateman’s gear warnings at 1,000
feet, 500 feet, and 200 feet. Bateman 2:26-43. Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings that the gear warning of
Bateman is different than the tailwind or crosswind warning of Ryan.
Appellants have also not persuasively distinguished the claimed “unstable
advisory” from the gear warning of Bateman, nor the claimed “associated
advisory” from the tailwind or crosswind warning of Ryan.
4
Appeal 2017-001435
Application 11/470,188
Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we highlight Ryan teaches
monitoring parameters, such as altitude and airspeed, (143), to determine
whether sufficient runway remains for landing 30, 44, 47—51). Ryan
further teaches providing individual alerts for the monitored parameters
when the aircraft is above a predetermined altitude such as 100 feet, and
ceasing all alerts except for insufficient runway after the aircraft is below the
predetermined altitude of 100 feet flflf 56, 47, 49-50). Ryan teaches that an
advantage of providing only the insufficient runway alert below a certain
altitude is not distracting the pilot with too many alerts. Ryan || 47, 50.
Appellants have not persuasively distinguished the claimed
“outputting an associated advisory” if any of the flight parameters is outside
of a limit “until the aircraft reaches a second approach gate ... a second
predetermined number of feet above . . . the intended runway,” from Ryan’s
teaching of outputting altitude and airspeed alerts when the aircraft is more
than 100 feet above the runway.
Appellants also have not persuasively distinguished the claimed
“outputting an unstable advisory . . . after the aircraft reaches the second
approach gate . . . wherein the unstable advisory is different than the
associated advisory,” from Ryan’s teaching of ceasing all alerts below 100
feet except for the insufficient runway alert, where the insufficient runway
alert is different than the altitude and airspeed alerts.
Appellants also have not provided persuasive evidence to show that
providing individual alerts for individual flight parameters above a
predefined altitude, and providing only a single alert below the predefined
altitude, does anything more than yield the predictable result of not
distracting the pilot at a very low altitude with too many alerts as taught by
5
Appeal 2017-001435
Application 11/470,188
Ryan. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appellants further contend that King does not teach a first approach
gate that is at a first predetermined number of feet above a runway and a
second approach gate that is at a second predetermined number of feet above
the runway. Reply Br. 4—5. Paragraph 2 of Appellants’ Specification
discloses an example of approach gates as 1,000 feet and 500 feet altitude
values. Appellants’ contention that King does not teach approach gates is
inconsistent with Figure 6 of King. Further, we highlight King’s teachings
are cumulative to the teachings of paragraphs 47 and 48 of Ryan, and
column 2, lines 21—43 of Bateman, which both teach a first and second
predetermined number of feet above a runway.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 21—34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ryan, King, and Bateman 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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6