Ex Parte Poe

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 31, 2008

11163744 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN J. POE
____________

Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: December 31, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-11, which are all of the claims pending in this application
since claims 6 and 12 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a standard interface between a vehicle
warning system and auto pilot system to allow communication between the
two systems (Spec. 1). The disclosed assisted recovery system and method
controls the vehicle based on the received signals such as localizer or glide
slope signals generated based on at least one of a directional or pitch
command signal (Spec. 2).
Claim 1, which is representative of the claims on appeal, reads as
follows:
1. A method performed on a vehicle for assisted recovery, the
method comprising:

receiving at least one of a directional or pitch command signal;

generating at least one of a localizer or glide slope signal based
on the received signal;

wirelessly transmitting the at least one localizer or glide slope
signals via a predefined frequency;

receiving the wirelessly transmitted signals at a navigation
system; and

controlling the vehicle based on the received signals,

wherein the at least one of directional or pitch command signals
are generated by an assisted recovery component based on a proximity
alert and a time delay.

The prior art applied in rejecting the claims on appeal is:
Simpson US 3,860,800 Jan. 14, 1975
Ross US 4,442,490 Apr. 10, 1984
Lin US 6,480,789 B2 Nov. 12, 2002

2
Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the combination of Simpson and Lin and further added
Ross for rejecting claims 3, 4, 9 and 11.1
We make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 4, 2008), the Reply
Brief (filed Apr. 8, 2008) and the Answer (mailed Feb. 12, 2008) for the
positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The issue turns on whether there
is a legally sufficient justification for combining the disclosures of Simpson
and Lin and if so, whether the combination of the applied references teaches
the claimed subject matter.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. Scope of Claims
The scope of the claims in patent applications is determined not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re American Academy of

1 The obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 was modified in
the Answer to be based upon the combination of Simpson and Lin after
Appellant canceled claims 6 and 12 and added their limitations to their
corresponding base claims 1 and 7 in an amendment filed July 25, 2007.
3
Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744

Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The “broadest
reasonable interpretation” rule recognizes that “before a patent is granted the
claims are readily amended as part of the examination process.” Burlington
Indus. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, a patent
applicant has the opportunity and responsibility to remove any ambiguity in
claim term meaning by amending the application. In re Prater, 415 F.2d
1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969).
“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Furthermore, the specification is the single
best guide to the meaning of a claim term. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
at 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
2. Obviousness
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.’

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739-40). “One of the ways in which a
patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed
at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742.
4
Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744

“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.

ANALYSIS
1. Claim Rejection over Simpson and Lin
The rejection is based on Simpson for disclosing the elements of
claim 1 except for the at least one of directional or pitch command signals
generated by an assisted recovery component based on a proximity alert and
a time delay, for which the Examiner relies on Lin (Ans. 3-4). In particular,
the Examiner points to Figure 1 and column 12, lines 42-50 of Lin where the
echoes of transmitted signals from the terrain surface and a measure of the
time delay between transmission and reception of the radio signal are used in
the measurements sent to the proximity warning system processor (Ans. 4).
Appellant does not dispute the teachings of Simpson with respect to
the claimed signals related to the localizer or the glide slope and merely
argues that the wireless signals are not being received in a “navigation
system” but in the actuators 27 (App. Br. 9), which is equivalent to at least a
portion of an autopilot system. Appellant relies on a definition of
“navigation” by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary to distinguish the actuator
27 from a navigation system (id.). Appellant specifically contends that, even
if wireless communication was used instead of wired communication, a
navigation system in Simpson would have been located before the glide
slope error detector 2 since Simpson already receives glide slope signal from
another source (App. Br. 9-10).
5
Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744

The Examiner responds that, despite the dictionary definitions of the
term “navigation system,” Appellant’s Specification does not provide
support for Appellant’s narrow definition of the “navigation system” (Ans.
8). The Examiner characterizes the entire system of Simpson as a navigation
system where the control actuator 27 controls or manages the aircraft’s flight
plan (id.).
We agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning characterizing the
entire system disclosed by Simpson as the “navigation system.” This
characterization is consistent with Appellant’s disclosure which states that
“[t]he navigation system 70 includes a component (not shown) that
processes the received localizer and glide slope signals as it would if the
signals came from a ground-based system.” (Spec. 4:20-22). Therefore, the
system disclosed by Simpson, which performs the disclosed functions, meets
the limitation of a “navigation system.”
Additionally, the claim does not require any specific source for the
generated signals. As such, we remain unconvinced by Appellant’s
argument (Reply Br. 4) that Simpson already receives glide slope signal
from another source. Similarly, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions (id.)
that “Simpson makes no mention of generating a glide slope signal … based
on a received directional or pitch command signal” and “Simpson only
generates a pitch control (pitch access [sic] control) signal based on the
radio defined glide slope plane.” (Id.) Simpson’s system is actually
conditioned for glide slope zero plane acquisition by using the same scheme
used to develop pitch axis control signals for glide slope zero plane tracking
(col. 2, ll. 30-41) based on signals received from the positional and
6
Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744

directional detectors 1-5 (Figure 1). Thus, the generated glide slope signal is
based on these detectors’ signals.
With respect to combining the references, Appellant argues that since
Lin sends the navigating data to a synthetic display for ground proximity
warning instead of a navigation system, Lin fails to overcome the
deficiencies noted in Simpson (App. Br. 10). The Examiner responds by
pointing out that the autopilot disclosed by Lin is also a part of the
navigation system (Ans. 9). We agree with the Examiner’s position and find
that Lin discloses an integrated positioning/proximity warning system for
warning and avoiding a potential collision (col. 1, ll. 7-15). We further find
that the synthetic vision system 70, which displays the received projected
flight path and warning decision message along with the terrain data and the
optimal evasion path (Fig. 11; col. 17, ll. 14-19), is still a part of the
navigation system of Lin.
Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation to claim 1 and
considering our analysis above, we simply find the Examiner’s position that
using the assisted recovery component based on a proximity alert and a time
delay of Lin (col. 12, ll. 42-50) would be recognized by the skilled artisan as
obvious enhancements to the navigation system of Simpson. According to
Leapfrog, when a combination of familiar elements according to methods
known to the skilled artisan (such as proximity and time delay-based assisted
recovery) achieves a predictable result, it is likely to be obvious.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claims 2 and 5,
argued together as one group (App. Br. 8-11), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Simpson and Lin is sustained.
7
Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744

Regarding claim 7, Appellant relies on the same arguments discussed
above with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 11-14), which were found to be
unpersuasive. Therefore, for the same reasons stated above with respect to
claims 1, 2, and 5, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 7, as
well as claims 8 and 10 which are not argued separately (App. Br. 14), based
upon the teachings of Simpson and Lin.
2. Claim Rejection over Simpson, Lin, and Ross
With respect to the rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, and 11 over Simpson
and Lin, and further in view of Ross, Appellant provides the same arguments
discussed above regarding claim 1, which were found to be unpersuasive.
Additionally, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not shown how the
combination of Ross provides the missing disclosure in Simpson related to
sending the signals to a navigation system (App. Br. 14-16). Accordingly,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, and 11 over
Simpson, Lin, and Ross.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
For all of the reasons discussed above, we find that Appellant has
failed to point to any error in the Examiner’s position and sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-11.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-11 is
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)(1)(iv).
8
Appeal 2008-5169
Application 11/163,744

AFFIRMED

Eld

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
P O BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-2245
9