Ex Parte Perruzzi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2003

09246212 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JOSEPH J. PERRUZZI, MICHAEL DIPAOLA
and EDWARD J. HILLARD
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, STAAB and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Joseph J. Perruzzi et al. appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 22, all of the claims pending in the
application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “a method [claims 1 through 11] and
apparatus [claims 12 through 22] for providing guidance
parameters at launch that direct a pursuing vehicle from a
launching vehicle to a target vehicle capable of evasive
maneuvering after the target vehicle becomes alerted to the
Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
2
presence of the pursuing vehicle” (specification, page 1).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. In a system for directing a pursuing vehicle from a
launching vehicle to a target vehicle wherein the launching
vehicle determines a range and bearing to and course and speed of
the target vehicle and generates initial operating parameters for
transfer to the pursuing vehicle that establish an intercept
trajectory including a path along an aim point bearing to the
target vehicle from the launching vehicle and wherein the
determination of the initial operating parameters is made with
respect to a first Cartesian coordinate system having an ordinate
axis on the determined bearing, the improvement for enabling the
operating parameters to compensate for a post launch evasive
maneuver of the target vehicle comprising the steps of:
defining the trajectory of the target vehicle including the
evasive maneuver on a second Cartesian coordinate system;
converting the definition of the target vehicle course from
the second to the first Cartesian coordinate system by rotating
the second Cartesian coordinate system by an angel equal to the
difference between the aim point path bearing and the determined
bearing to the target; and
iteratively processing the courses of the pursuing and
target vehicles to the intercept in advance of the launch to
generate the initial operating parameters.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Thornberg et al. (Thornberg) 5,552,983 Sep. 3, 1996
Bessacini 6,006,145 Dec. 21, 1999
Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
1 As correctly pointed out by the examiner (see page 2 in
the answer), and notwithstanding comments to the contrary by the
appellants (see pages 3, 6 and 7 in the brief), the above stated
rejection constitutes the only issue in this appeal.
3
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bessacini in view of Thornberg.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.
12) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.
8 and 13) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.1
DISCUSSION
Bessacini, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses “a
control method and apparatus for producing guidance parameters
for use by a pursuing vehicle [e.g., a torpedo] at launch that
take into account potential evasive maneuvers of a target
vehicle” (column 3, lines 27 through 30). In general,
initial guidance parameters are provided to place a
pursuing vehicle on an intercept trajectory from a
launching vehicle to a target vehicle with evasion
capabilities. At the launching vehicle, the control
method and apparatus respond to the initial parameters,
a representation of a pursuing vehicle characteristic
trajectory derived from a corresponding generic model
and a representation of an evading target
characteristic trajectory derived from another generic
model as inputs of iterative processing. Iterative
processing of functional forms of the trajectories,
Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
2 As claim 12 is an apparatus claim, the words “the steps
of” which appear after “comprising” should be deleted.
3 Upon return of the application to the technology center,
the examiner should review the descriptions of the first and
second Cartesian coordinate systems on specification pages 8
through 10 and the related recitations in claims 1, 7, 12 and 18,
particularly the portions relating to the ordinate axes of the
systems, to ensure that they are consistent and correct.
4
starting with the initial estimates of the operating
parameter solutions, provides successive operating
parameter solutions that converge. During each
iteration, the method and apparatus determine an
alertment bearing from the target vehicle to the
pursing vehicle at alertment. This serves as a basis
for determining the expected course and speed of the
target vehicle as a result of an evasive maneuver, with
the course being based upon the alertment bearing.
Once convergence has been achieved, the pursuing
vehicle receives guidance parameters based upon the
last target state estimates and the final solutions
[column 3, lines 43 through 63].
As conceded by the examiner (see page 3 in the final
rejection), Bessacini does not respond to the steps in
independent method claim 1, or the corresponding means in
independent apparatus claim 12,2 for defining the trajectory of
the target vehicle including the evasive maneuver on a second
Cartesian coordinate system and for converting the definition of
the target vehicle course from the second to the first Cartesian
coordinate system by rotating the second Cartesian coordinate
system by an angle equal to the difference between the aim point
path bearing and the determined bearing to the target.3 To
Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
5
overcome these deficiencies, the examiner looks to Thornberg.
Thornberg discloses a system for facilitating the remote
control of a vehicle, e.g., a torpedo, by allowing the operator
to select a desired frame of reference and converting the
operator’s control inputs to account for the orientation of the
vehicle relative to the selected frame of reference.
In proposing to combine Bessacini and Thornberg to reject
claims 1 and 12, the examiner submits that it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art “to use the conversions of Thornberg et
al. in the invention of Bessacini because such modification would
provide for controlling torpedo’s [sic] for underwater delivery
of ordinance” (final rejection, page 4).
In short, there is nothing in Thornberg’s disclosure of a
“post-launch” vehicle remote control system which would have
suggested modifying Bessacini’s “pre-launch” programmed vehicle
control system so as to include the second Cartesian coordinate
system and conversion features required by claims 1 and 12. The
only motivation for combining these disparate teachings so as to
arrive at the subject matter claimed stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellants’ own
disclosure.
Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
6
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1 and 12, and dependent claims 2 through 11
and 13 through 22, as being unpatentable over Bessacini in view
of Thornberg.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 22
is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/gjh
Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
7
OFFICE OF COUNSEL BLDG, 112T
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER
DIVISION NEWPORT
1176 HOWELL STREET
NEWPORT, RI 02841-1708