Ex Parte Martins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13711822 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 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.
13/711,822 12/12/2012 Reinaldo MARTINS 4439-128 1014
23117 7590 11/02/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
WILTEY, NICHOLAS K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINALDO MARTINS and NELSON SEIBERT
Appeal 2017-003139
Application 13/711,822
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—23, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-003139
Application 13/711,822
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to systems and
methods that “automatically monitor the flight parameters of an airplane
during takeoff and provide intervention such as an alert if the takeoff should
be aborted” (Spec. 13).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A safe takeoff monitoring system for an airplane
comprising:
sensors onboard the airplane that detect parameters relating
to airplane weight and detect parameters relating to the actual
speed of the airplane; and
an automatic processor operatively coupled to the sensors
and responsive to data indicating the length of the runway and
the current position of the airplane on the runway, the automatic
processor continually computing parameters including whether
the remaining distance on the runway from the present position
of the airplane on the runway is sufficient for the airplane to
stop on the runway, the automatic processor conditionally
issuing a warning to the pilot to abort takeoff if the sensed
parameters indicate the actual airplane speed value is up to VR
and the automatic processor has computed that the remaining
distance on the runway is adequate for the airplane to stop on
the runway.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—3, 5, 7—12, 14, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Richards (US 2008/0215198 Al, published
Sept. 4, 2008), Pitard (US 2007/0124034 Al, published May 31, 2007), and
Middleton (US 4,843,554, issued June 27, 1989).
2
Appeal 2017-003139
Application 13/711,822
2. Claims 4, 6, 13, 15, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Richards, Pitard, Middleton, and Lemoult (US
7,885,734 B2, issued Feb. 8, 2011).
3. Claims 3, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Richards, Pitard, Middleton, and Virelizier (US
2010/0241294 Al, published Sept. 23, 2010).
4. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), or 112(pre-AIA),
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Richards (in view of Pitard and Middleton) teaches or suggests
(1) an automatic processor “conditionally issuing a warning to the pilot to
abort takeoff’ if" the sensed parameters indicate the actual airplane speed
value is up to Vr? and (2) the automatic processor “has computed that the
remaining distance on the runway is adequate for the airplane to stop on the
runway” (claim 1, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants ’ Invention
1. Appellants’ Specification describes “one example non-limiting
implementation,” wherein a warning is issued when “[t]he distance to stop
the airplane on the remaining runway is adequate”; “[t]he actual airplane
speed is below Vr”; etc. (143). In particular, the subsystem issues a
3
Appeal 2017-003139
Application 13/711,822
warning to the pilot to abort the takeoff, wherein the warning is issued if
“Instantaneous Speed < Vr proposed by the pilot”; “Stopping Margin > K5,
where K5 is a value to be adjusted to each airplane model/type”; etc.
(11117-118).
Richards
2. Richards discloses providing takeoff runway information and
predicting end of runway overrun, wherein Figure 4 is reproduced below:
Distance
Fio 4
Figure 4 shows a graph of airspeed versus distance, where the origin
represents the takeoff position and zero airspeed, while the end of the
runway is represented by line 94. (Richards 1 62). VI (takeoff decision
speed), VR (rotational speed) and V2 (takeoff speed) are represented by
lines 96, 98, and 100, respectively. (Id.). Curve 102 represents the expected
speed necessary at any distance from the takeoff position in order to
accomplish a safe, normal takeoff. (Id.).
4
Appeal 2017-003139
Application 13/711,822
As shown in Figure 4, a combination of speed and distance of the
aircraft that corresponds to curve 106 may not result in a takeoff, since V2
airspeed is not reached until after the end of the runway is reached. {Id. 1
63). Thus, a processor determines whether the performance of the aircraft is
sufficient to achieve takeoff before encountering the end of the runway,
wherein if the speed and distance of the aircraft is determined to correspond
to a point below and to the right of curve 102, the processor will provide a
warning to the flight crew. {Id. 1 64). Accordingly, an early warning of
anomalies in the aircraft takeoff performance is provided to the flight crew
in time to abort the takeoff and safely stop the aircraft should the processor
detect the inability of the aircraft to accelerate to the necessary takeoff speed
before encountering the end of the runway {id. 165).
In Figure 4, line 108 represents the deceleration necessary to stop the
aircraft before encountering the end of the runway, wherein the intersection
of curve 106 and line 108 occurs before the aircraft ever reaches VI
indicating that the warning is provided to the flight crew regarding
overrunning the end of the runway before VI is achieved, thereby increasing
the odds that the flight crew will be able to safely stop the aircraft without
overrunning the end of the runway {id. 166).
Pitard
3. Pitard discloses a method for checking takeoff or landing parameters
(Pitard, Abstract), which determines if the takeoff distance is shorter than or
equal to the available takeoff distance {id. 1129), wherein an error is
detected if the rotation speed VR and climb/takeoff speed V2 were
overestimated in the calculation of the takeoff distance (Id. 1131).
5
Appeal 2017-003139
Application 13/711,822
IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
As to claim 1, although Appellants concede “V1