Ex Parte Kubica

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2008

10716461 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FRANCOIS KUBICA
____________

Appeal 2008-0438
Application 10/716,461
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: July 25, 2008
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
JOHN C. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Francois Kubica (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 7-11, 13, 26, and 28-30, which are
the only pending claims. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
Appeal 2008-0438
Application 10/716,461

2
The Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for operating an
aircraft provided with electrical fly-by-wire controls and, more particularly,
to the architecture of the flight control system for such aircraft (Specification
1:3 and 13-14). Claims 1 and 13, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed invention.
1. A method for operating an aircraft, comprising
the steps of:
receiving guidance instructions and
guidance parameters at a navigation computer;
transmitting automatic pilot instructions
from said navigation computer to a flight control
computer over a dedicated communication link;
receiving control instructions and said
automatic pilot instructions at said flight control
computer;
in an automatic pilot mode, generating a first
plurality of operating commands based on said
automatic pilot instructions at said flight control
computer; and
in a manual pilot mode, generating a second
plurality of operating commands based on said
control instructions at said flight control computer.
13. A method for operating an aircraft, comprising
the steps of:
transmitting automatic pilot instructions
from a navigation computer to a flight control
computer over a dedicated communication link;
receiving control instructions and said
automatic pilot instructions at said flight control
computer;
Appeal 2008-0438
Application 10/716,461

3
in an automatic pilot mode, generating a first
plurality of operating commands based on said
automatic pilot instructions at said flight control
computer; and
in a manual pilot mode, generating a second
plurality of operating commands based on said
control instructions at said flight control computer.
The Rejection
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 13, 26, and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pages (US 5,774,818, issued June 30, 1998)
and Trikha (US 6,003,811, issued December 21, 1999).
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Answer, mailed March 26, 2007. Appellant presents opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed December 11, 2006, and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”), filed May 29, 2007. Appellant’s counsel presented oral
argument on July 9, 2008.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Pages teaches a method for piloting an aerodyne by automatic control
onto a path determined from way points. Pages’ method includes the pilot
inputting data pertaining to a mission into a communications processor 11
via a keyboard 17 and the processor 11 transmitting such data to computer
12. The mission comprises a flight plan defined by a set of geographical
points (L, M)1 possibly associated with a route constraint R. Computer 12
computes the paths, each defined by a set of points, to be followed between
each of the points entered by the pilot. In essence, computer 12 computes

1 L denotes latitude or parallel and M denotes meridian.
Appeal 2008-0438
Application 10/716,461

4
and transmits to automatic piloting device 13 a detailed flight path including,
at all times during the automatic piloting phase, the position and route of the
next point on the flight path to be reached. Automatic piloting device 13
also is connected to and receives input from navigational instruments 15 to
compute the instructions to be applied to the control surfaces as a function of
the position and course of the aerodyne and to control surface actuators 14 in
order to carry out the instructions thus computed. Automatic piloting device
13 also is connected to a tendency bar display 18 which, during the manual
piloting phase, indicates to the pilot the piloting commands to be executed to
rejoin and follow a predetermined path. In other words, automatic piloting
device 13 computes the required changes in flight path to follow a
predetermined flight path. (Pages, col. 5, ll. 22-55; fig. 4.)
Pages does not teach receiving control instructions and generating a
second plurality of operating commands based on said control instructions
during a manual pilot mode, as required in claims 1 and 13.
Trikha teaches an aircraft control system comprising an autopilot 25
that transmits flight path change commands through data bus 22 and data
transfer unit 24 to a primary flight computer 26. The primary flight
computer 26 also receives through data bus 22 and data transfer units 20, 24
command signals from position sensors 14, which sense the positions of
manual pilot controls, such as the wheel, column or pedal, 12 to indicate a
desired change in flight path. The primary flight computer 26 converts the
autopilot inputs from autopilot 25 as well as the command signals from
position sensors 14 into desired surface actuator commands and transmits
them to actuator control electronics 18 through data transfer units 20, 24 and
data bus 22. The actuator control electronics then controls the actuators of
Appeal 2008-0438
Application 10/716,461

5
the control surfaces 42 to achieve the commanded actuator positions.
(Trikha, col. 3, ll. 5-28; fig. 1.)
The prior art uses the terminology “autopilot” inputs to describe flight
path change commands (Trikha, col. 3, ll. 17-18). See also Posting by Jeff
Scott to http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0187.shtml (Aug.
1, 2004) (page 2).2 Such usage is consistent with Appellant’s description of
a commanded vertical load factor, a commanded roll rate, and a commanded
yaw as examples of automatic pilot instructions (Specification 6:9-10).

OPINION
The dispositive issue in this case is whether Pages and Trikha, alone
or in combination, teach transmitting automatic pilot instructions from a
navigation computer to a flight control computer over a dedicated
communication link, as called for in both independent claims 1 and 13. This
issue turns on whether (1) the output of computer 12 of Pages constitutes
“automatic pilot instructions” as used in claims 1 and 13 or (2) Trikha
teaches transmitting automatic pilot instructions from a navigation computer
to a flight control computer over a dedicated communication link.
In reading the limitations of claims 1 and 13 on Pages, as modified in
view of Trikha, the Examiner contends that Pages’ computer 12 is the
“navigation computer” and automatic piloting device 13 is the “flight control
computer.” The Examiner further contends that the flight path data (position
and route information) generated by Pages’ computer 12 and transmitted to

2 A copy of this article (posting) is included in the Evidence Appendix to the
Appeal Brief. Page numbers refer to the pagination at the top right of the
pages in the copy appended to the Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2008-0438
Application 10/716,461

6
automatic piloting device 13 is “automatic pilot instructions.” (Answer 3
and 7-9.) Appellant, on the other hand, contends that the flight path data
computed and transmitted by computer 12 “is at best ‘guidance instructions’
or ‘guidance parameters,’ not ‘automatic pilot instructions.’” (Appeal Br. 5.)
(Emphasis original.)
We agree with Appellant that the flight path data computed and
transmitted by Pages’ computer 12 does not constitute “automatic pilot
instructions” as required in claims 1 and 13. When construing claim
terminology in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claims are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On the basis of our
findings above, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art of
aircraft control systems would understand “autopilot instructions” as used in
Appellant’s claims 1 and 13 to be flight path change commands to be
executed to return to or follow a predetermined flight path. Pages’ computer
12, on the other hand, computes and transmits a predetermined flight path.
The computer 13, not computer 12, in the system of Pages computes
autopilot instructions, that is, piloting commands to be executed to rejoin
and follow a predetermined path, and transmits them to a tendency bar
display 18 for display to the pilot during a manual piloting phase or
computes instructions to be applied to the control surfaces and to the control
surface actuators during the automatic piloting phase.
The Examiner’s determination that Pages’ computer 12 transmits
“autopilot instructions” to computer 13 is flawed in that it is based on an
Appeal 2008-0438
Application 10/716,461

7
overly broad interpretation of the terminology “autopilot instructions” as
used in claims 1 and 13. Inasmuch as the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
3, 7-11, 13, 26, and 28-30 as unpatentable over Pages and Trikha is
grounded on this flawed determination,3 it cannot be sustained. Moreover,
while Trikha teaches transmitting what appear to be autopilot instructions
(flight change commands) from a navigation computer (autopilot 25), and
receiving control instructions and said autopilot instructions at a flight
control computer (primary flight computer 26), Trikha does not teach
transmitting those autopilot instructions (flight change commands) to the
flight control computer (primary flight computer 26) over a dedicated
communication link, as called for in claims 1 and 13. Rather, as we found
above, Trikha’s autopilot 25 transmits the flight change commands over data
bus 22 and data transfer unit 24, which are also used to transmit data from
position sensors 14 and thus do not constitute a dedicated communication
link. Therefore, Pages and Trikha do not teach all of the limitations of
claims 1 and 13 and thus are insufficient to establish that the subject matter
of claims 1 and 13, and claims 3, 7-11, 26, and 28-30 depending therefrom,
would have been obvious.

CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 7-11, 13, 26, and
28-30 is reversed.
REVERSED

3 The Examiner does not rely on Trikha for any teaching that would
overcome this deficiency in Pages.
Appeal 2008-0438
Application 10/716,461

8
OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

vsh