Ex Parte Muensterer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13480798 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/480,798 05/25/2012 Thomas MUENSTERER P41971 8531
7055 7590 03/01/2017
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
BENNETT, STUART D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS MUENSTERER, PETER KIELHORN, and
MATTHIAS WEGNER
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a method for pilot assistance for the landing
of an aircraft in restricted visibility. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for pilot assistance in landing an aircraft with
restricted visibility, in which the position of a landing point is
defined by at least one of a motion-compensated, aircraft-based
1 Appellants indicate that Airbus Defence and Space GmbH is the real party
in interest. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
helmet sight system and a remotely controlled camera during a
landing approach, and with the landing point being displayed on
a ground surface in the at least one of the helmet sight system
and the remotely controlled camera by production of symbols
that conform with the outside view, the method comprising:
one of producing or calculating during an approach, a
ground surface based on measurement data from an aircraft-
based 3D sensor; and
providing both the 3D measurement data of the ground
surface and a definition of the landing point with reference to a
same aircraft-fixed coordinate system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Scherbarth
Hett
Marsh et al.
Suddreth et al.
Johnson
Anders
Wegner et al.
US 2006/0087452 Al
US 7,216,069 B2
US 7,535,381 B2
US 8,155,806 B2
US 2012/0136895 Al
US 8,286,477 B2
US 8,305,238 B2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Apr. 27, 2006
May 8, 2007
May 19, 2009
Apr. 10, 2012
May 31, 2012
Oct. 16, 2012
Nov. 6, 2012
Claims 1^4 and 14—16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wegner.
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wegner in view of Anders.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wegner in view of Scherbarth.
2
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wegner in view of Scherbarth as applied to claim 6
above, and further in view of Johnson.
Claim 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wegner in view of Scherbarth as applied to claim 6 above,
and further in view of Suddreth.
Claim 11 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wegner in view of Marsh.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wegner in view of Hett.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 14, Appellants argue the
claims separately and further set forth separate arguments for patentability of
various dependent claims. As a result, we will address Appellants’
arguments in the order set forth in the Appeal Brief.
Claim 1
Initially, Appellants paraphrase the language of independent claim 1
and contend:
independent claim 1 is directed to method in which a landing
point is displayed on a ground surface in the at least one of the
helmet sight system and the remotely controlled camera by
production of symbols that conform with the outside view. In
fact, Appellants submit that there is no express or implied
disclosure found in WEGNER that even arguably describes a
method by which a landing point on a ground surface is displayed
in the at least one of the helmet sight system and the remotely
controlled camera.
3
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
(App. Br. 10).
Appellants discuss portions of the Wegner reference and contend:
As [a] pilot using the WEGNER system is utilizing multiple
displays and screens, Appellants submit that there is no
discernible disclosure of a method by which a landing point on a
ground surface is displayed in the at least one of the helmet sight
system and the remotely controlled camera, as recited in at least
independent claim 1.
(App. Br. 11). We find Appellants’ argument to be conclusory in nature. We
find the Wegner reference discloses:
One object of the invention is to provide and improve
man-machine interface for pilots such that, in the case of a
brown-out or white-out landing, he or she is provided with
optimized intuitive assistance for three-dimensional orientation,
thus allowing a safe landing even and in particular in these
extreme situations.
This and other objects and advantages are achieved by the
man-machine interface according to the invention, in which a
virtual scenario is presented, from the perspective of a virtual
observer who is located behind the airborne vehicle and is in the
same flight attitude as the airborne vehicle itself.
(Wegner col. 2,11. 3—13). Wegner further discloses:
In a further embodiment, the base plane has superimposed
on it a three-dimensional display of the actual topographical
terrain surface (in particular with respect to the conditions in
front of, at the side of and under the airborne vehicle), on the
basis of high-resolution 3D data.
(Wegner col. 2,11. 60-65). Additionally, Wegner discloses:
If the brown-out rescue system has a high-resolution,
forward-looking 3D sensor or alternatively has access to a digital
3D terrain database, and the helicopter furthermore has a helmet
mounted sight system (HMS/D), then the specific landing point
or touch-down point can be visually aimed at, selected and
displayed accurately in position in the display on the base plane
BE, by the pilot, before a possible brown out.
4
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
(Wegner col. 5,11. 27—33).
As a result, we disagree with Appellants’ speculation that multiple
displays are used rather than a unitary display with multiple graphical
elements for representations thereon. Moreover, the language of
independent claim 1 merely sets forth two steps “one of producing or
calculating ...” and “providing . . . .” We further find the language in the
preamble of independent claim 1 sets forth alternative language (“at least
one of. . .” and “at least one of. . .”). Consequently, Appellants’ arguments
regarding the language in the preamble of independent claim 1 does not
distinguish from the method of the Wegner reference.
Appellants further identify paragraph 61 of the Specification which
identifies the advantages of the disclosed invention, and Appellants proffer
that the claimed embodiments of independent claim 1 are:
clearly distinct from systems and methods utilizing Earth-fixed
reference systems, because such Earth-fixed reference systems
include errors associated with the pitch, roll and course angles of
the navigation system, which do not arise in Appellants’ aircraft
fixed coordinate system. Thus, the aircraft fixed coordinate
system in the claimed embodiments of at least independent claim
1 do not suffer the drawbacks of the known art, such as
WEGNER, in which pitch, roll and course angles of the
navigation system, as well as their errors, are included in a
database method in which the pitch roll and course angles from
the navigation system are used with a geo-referenced absolute
position of the aircraft in the determination of the landing
position.
(App. Br. 12). We disagree with Appellants and find that Appellants’
argument is not commensurate in scope with the broad language of
independent claim 1. Appellants do not identify any express claim language
or context from the Specification beyond the claimed same “aircraft fixed
coordinate system.” We find the label “aircraft fixed coordinate system” is
5
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
not defined or limited by the method steps of independent claim 1.
Consequently, we find Appellants’ argument does not show error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation of independent claim 1.
Appellants further contend that the system of the Wegner reference is
with respect to “a geo-referenced absolute position of the aircraft,” and that
“WEGNER uses a geo-referenced coordinate system instead of an aircraft
fixed coordinate system for the 3D sensor and the helmet sight system, as
recited in at least independent claim 1.” (App. Br. 13).
We disagree with Appellants’ interpretation and find that the
coordinate system of the Wegner reference is on an aircraft, and is fixed in
the display to the pilot and the data is produced or calculated during
approach by a three-dimensional sensor on the aircraft and defines a landing
point for the pilot. As a result, Appellants’ argument with respect to the
“same aircraft-fixed coordinate system” does not show error in the
Examiner’s findings of fact regarding the claimed method steps of
“producing or calculating” and “providing” as recited in the language of
independent claim 1. We agree with the Examiner’s findings the data
necessarily has a coordinate system, and Appellants’ arguments are beyond
the scope of independent claim 1.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s interpretation of column 5 the
Wegner reference is improper:
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner improperly
concludes that WEGNER discloses that “current flight attitude
angles of the airborne vehicle and the field of view of the helmet
sight system results in a three-dimensional direction vector. The
landing point or touch-down point is located at the intersection
of this vector and the ground surface determined by means of the
3D sensor: e.g., flight attitude is inherently known to be fixed on
6
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
the aircraft for consistent data and it is a coordinate system
consisting of roll, yaw, and pitch data regarding the aircraft's
position in space.” (Exr's Ans., p. 3, 11. 10—15).
The Examiner's above-recited declaratory statement of
inherency is not readily understood by Appellants. While the
Examiner alleges that “flight attitude is inherently known to be
fixed on the aircraft for consistent data and it is a coordinate
system consisting of roll, yaw, and pitch data regarding the
aircraft's position in space,” (Exr's Ans., p. 3, 11. 13 — 15)
Appellants respectfully submit that those ordinarily skilled in the
art at the time the invention was made would have readily
understood that flight attitude is concerned with an aircraft's
orientation in a geo-referenced coordinate system.
(Reply Br. 2).
We disagree with Appellants and find Appellants’ argument is based
upon an undefined claim term where the Examiner has provided an
explanation as to how the Examiner interprets the claim limitation, but
Appellants provide a general argument for patentability. We further note the
language of independent claim 1 does not set forth specific parameters with
which to define the claimed “aircraft-fixed coordinate system.”
Consequently, Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. As a result, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 14
With respect to independent claim 14, Appellants contend that the
Wegner reference does not describe “a method in which an intersection of a
line of sight and a 3 dimensionally measured area is displayed by symbols in
the one of the helmet system and the camera.'1'’ (App. Br. 15). We note that
Appellants present similar arguments regarding the Wegner reference and
7
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
replaces the proffered language from claim 1 for the distinction with the
proffered claim 14 language. (App. Br. 14—18). Appellants further contend:
Appellants note that, rather than measuring a line of sight
to the landing point, WEGNER merely discloses determination
of a three-dimensional direction vector, which is based upon
current flight attitude angles and field of view of the helmet
system. Moreover, Appellants submit that, as WEGNER uses the
direction vector to position to ascertain or locate the landing or
touch-down point on the ground surface generated by the 3
dimensional sensor or database, those ordinarily skilled in the art
reviewing WEGNER would have found no discernible
disclosure measuring the line of sight to the landing point, as
recited in at least independent claim 14.
(App. Br. 16—17). We find Appellants’ proffered distinction of a line of
sight versus a direction vector does not identify how the direction vector is
different than the line of sight to the landing. We further find Appellants’
argument is not commensurate in scope with the express language of
independent claim 14 which merely sets forth “measuring a line of sight to
the landing point.”
Appellants further contend:
Moreover, as it is readily apparent from WEGNER that the
direction vector is used to locate a landing or touch-down point
on the ground surface generated by the 3 dimensional sensor,
Appellants submit that is would have been readily apparent this
disclosure of contrary to the expressly recited method of at least
independent claim 14, which includes 3 dimensionally
measuring an area that includes the landing point. In other
words, as WEGNER starts with the 3 dimensional sensor
generated ground surface and superimposes the landing or touch­
down point on the generated ground surface based upon the
direction vector, no reasonable interpretation of WEGNER
would have been understood by those ordinarily skilled in the art
to have arguably disclosed 3 dimensionally measuring an area
that includes the landing point, as recited in at least independent
claim 14. That is, as the landing point is added to the three
8
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
dimensionally measuring of the based upon the derived direction
vector, WEGNER would not have been reasonably understood
to have anticipated the method of Appellants' independent claim
14.
(App. Br. 17). We disagree with Appellants and find the proffered
distinction is beyond the scope of the express language of independent claim
14 regarding “the landing point is added to the three dimensionally
measuring of the based upon the derived direction vector.” Consequently,
Appellants’ arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation of independent claim 14.
With respect to dependent claims 2—4, 15, and 16, Appellants rely
upon the arguments advanced with respect to parent claims 1 and 14.
Appellants further provide separate arguments for patentability. Appellants’
arguments repeat the claim language and generally contend that no
reasonable interpretation of the Wegner reference anticipates the claimed
invention. (App. Br. 18—20).
Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim”). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an anticipation
rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. Attorney
arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual
evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7—8 (BPAI
Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
9
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
Here, we find Appellants’ arguments are conclusory in nature and fail
to address the thrust of the Examiner’s anticipation rejections.
“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the
record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole,
326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)). This reasoning is applicable here.
On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. Cf. In re
Baxter TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art”).
As a result, Appellants’ argument does not show error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation, and we sustain dependent claims 2—4,
15, and 16.
Obviousness
With respect to dependent claims 5—13 and 17, Appellants rely upon
the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1 and 14 and
maintain that the additional prior art references do not remedy the
deficiencies noted above with respect to the Wegner reference. (App. Br.
20—36). Because we find no deficiency in the Wegner reference as
discussed above, we find Appellants’ arguments to be general arguments for
patentability, which do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness. Consequently, Appellants have not shown error
in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of claims 5—13 and 17.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—4 and 14—16 based
upon anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and the Examiner did not err in
10
Appeal 2016-002507
Application 13/480,798
rejecting claims 5—13 and 17 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—17 are
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11