Ex Parte Lacko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13590503 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/590,503 08/21/2012 Ivan Lacko H0034796 (002.2676) 8028
89955 7590 09/05/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
TRIVEDI, ATUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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 IVAN LACKO, CLAUDIA KEINRATH,
FRANTISEK MIKULU, and YUJIA CAO
Appeal 2015-005461
Application 13/590,503
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—6, 9—16,
and 19—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Honeywell International Inc. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-005461
Application 13/590,503
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1,11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for generating a flight display, comprising:
determining a position of an aircraft with reference to an
airport, the position comprising an altitude and a lateral position
with respect to an approach procedure for the airport;
calculating a distance required for the aircraft to decelerate
and descend for entering a final approach gate of the airport in a
stabilized configuration, wherein deceleration comprises a
reduction in aircraft thrust, an extension of aircraft flaps, and an
extension of aircraft landing gear;
comparing the position of the aircraft with the distance
required for the aircraft to decelerate and descend so as to arrive
at a final gate of the airport in a stabilized aircraft configuration;
and
generating a flight display comprising an advisory based
on a result of the comparing, wherein generating the flight
display comprises:
(1) based on the calculated distance and the
comparing, issuing a first graphical advisory via the flight
display to perform the reduction in aircraft thrust;
(2) based on the calculated distance and the
comparing, at a time subsequent to issuing the first
graphical advisory, issuing a second graphical advisory to
perform the extension of aircraft flaps; and
(3) based on the calculated distance and the
comparing, at a time subsequent to issuing the second
graphical advisory, issuing a third graphical advisory to
perform the extension of aircraft landing gear.
Rejection
Claims 1—6, 9—16, and 19—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Deker (US 2009/0043434 Al, published Feb. 12, 2009)
2
Appeal 2015-005461
Application 13/590,503
and Ryan et al. (US 2005/0261813 Al, published Nov. 24, 2005). Final Act.
2-9.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 1—5. We concur with Appellants’
argument, App. Br. 11, that the Examiner has not shown the combination of
Deker and Ryan teaches issuing the three graphical advisories in the order
claimed. In particular, we agree with Appellants, App. Br. 13, that the cited
portions of Ryan do not teach issuing the second graphical advisory to
perform the extension of aircraft flaps “at a time subsequent to issuing the
first graphical advisory” (hereinafter, the “second advisory limitation”), as
recited in claim 1.
The Examiner relies on paragraph 46 of Ryan for teaching the second
advisory limitation. Final Act. 3. Paragraph 46 relates to a “configuration
check” to determine whether the aircraft is “in the slot,” which is “usually
made between the runway outer marker and some distance from the
runway.” Ryan para. 44. Thus, the aircraft has not yet landed when the
second advisory is issued. Appellants contend that the portion of Ryan
relied on by the Examiner for the first graphical advisory (relating to
reduction in aircraft thrust) occurs after the aircraft has landed and,
therefore, would occur after the second graphical advisory, contrary to the
language of claim 1. App. Br. 12.
Paragraph 88 of Ryan, relied on by the Examiner for the first
graphical advisory, Final Act. 3, teaches that “[according to the above
method, the pilot receives a warning when the remaining runway distance
3
Appeal 2015-005461
Application 13/590,503
DrW is insufficient to safely decelerate the aircraft 121 at the current
deceleration function,” Ryan para. 88. The Examiner finds that “Ryan states
the possibility that the aircraft is still in the air” when issuing the first
advisory because paragraph 89 uses the phrase “if the aircraft 121 is
traveling at a rate of 75 knots over ground.” Ans. 2. The Examiner finds,
based on Ryan’s paragraph 89, that “a person of skill in the art may well
conclude that the thrust warning in Ryan takes place before a warning to
lower the flaps, or extending the landing gear.” Id.
The “above method” mentioned in Ryan’s paragraph 88 refers to the
method described in the preceding paragraphs relating to Figure 6, which
“illustrates a method for monitoring landing overrun after touchdown.”
Ryan para. 81. Thus, one of skill in the art would understand the speed
“over ground” in paragraph 89 of Ryan to refer to ground speed, as opposed
to air speed. These paragraphs of Ryan, therefore, teach issuing the warning
as to ground speed after landing, and do not support the Examiner’s finding
that Ryan teaches issuing the second graphical advisory after the first
graphical advisory, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner finds in the Answer that “Ryan teaches detecting a
correct flap position (| 44) after determining path projections (136) based
on a comparison of airspeed with an acceptable maximum value (143)” and
“also teaches adjusting the thrust to bring the aircraft to a safe speed (124)
before measuring performance data, including required gear and flap
configurations (| 29).” Ans. 2—3. These findings refer to checking and
adjusting thrust prior to checking flap position and landing gear, but the
Examiner does not find these portions of Ryan teach issuing a graphical
warning to perform the reduction in aircraft thrust, which must occur prior to
4
Appeal 2015-005461
Application 13/590,503
the second graphical advisory according to the language of claim 1. Absent
such findings supported by evidence, or reasoning as to why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have issued the graphical advisories in the order recited
in claim 1, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2—6, 9, 10, and 21—24, which depend therefrom. Independent
claims 11 and 20 similarly recite the above-mentioned order of issuing the
same graphical advisories. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11 and 20, and dependent claims 12—16 and 19, for the
same reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 9—16, and 19—24.
REVERSED
5