Ex Parte Polansky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2016

12849637 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/849,637
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
08/03/2010
02/11/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michal Polansky
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0026213 (002.2573) 8240
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, TERESA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 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@honeywell.com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAL POLANSKY, STEPHANE MARCHE,
MIKE JACKSON, and CHRISTINE MARIE HAISSIG
Appeal2013-008909 1
Application 12/849,6372
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
April 30, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 28, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 20, 2013) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed March 14, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally "to systems and
methods by which onboard Airborne Separation Assurance Systems (ASAS)
and Required Time of Arrival (R TA) systems may cooperate to maintain
aircraft separation and spacing in high density areas" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. An onboard system for self-controlling an aircraft
traversing a flight plan, comprising:
[a] an autopilot configured to execute a trajectory of the
aircraft;
[b] a required time of arrival (R TA) system in operable
communication with the autopilot, the RT A system configured
to determine a RTA trajectory of the aircraft based on an RTA
of the aircraft at a waypoint along the flight plan; and
[ c] an airborne separation assurance system (ASAS) in
operable communication with the RT A and configured to
determine a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from
a first reference aircraft.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Closse (US 8,027,783 B2, iss. Sept. 27, 2011) and
Klooster (US 8,010,267 B2, iss. Aug. 30, 2011) (Final Act. 3).
Claims 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Closse, Klooster, and Deker (US 2010/0217 510 A 1, pub.
Aug. 26, 2010) (id. at 5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Closse, Klooster, and Estkowski (US 2009/0125221 Al, iss. May 14, 2009)
(id. at 7).
2
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
Claims 6, 12, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Deker and Closse (id.).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Deker, Closse, and Estkowski (id. at 11 ).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
proposed combination of Closse and Klooster does not disclose or suggest "a
required time of arrival (RT A) system ... configured to determine a RT A
trajectory of the aircraft based on an R TA of the aircraft at a waypoint along
the flight plan" and "an airborne separation assurance system (ASAS) in
operable communication with the RT A and configured to determine a
spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first reference aircraft,"
as recited in limitations [b] and [ c], respectively, of independent claim 1
(Appeal Br. 9-12; see also Reply Br. 2-3). Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Closse and Klooster discloses the argued
limitations (Final Act. 3--4 (citing Closse col. 2, 11. 25---61, col. 3, 1. 62 -
col. 4, 1. 12, col. 7, 11. 16--41, col. 8, 11. 17-29; Klooster col. 1, 1. 56 - col. 2,
1. 10, col. 7, 11. 40---67, and Figures 1-7)).
Closse is directed to an automatic flight management device 1 which
is used to automatically guide an airplane comprising: "a flight management
system [3] which constructs the reference trajectory which the airplane will
have to follow; a flight computer [7] which guides the airplane along this
reference trajectory; display means which inform the pilot about the conduct
3
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
of the flight; and links between each of these subsystems" ( Closse col. 1, 11.
49-59; see also id. at col. 5, 11. 17--40 and Fig. 1 ). Closse also discloses a
"means of actuation of control members (air foils, etc.)" which executes
guidance orders (id. col. 2, 11. 39-50, see also id. at col. 3, 11. 33--41). Closse
discloses that its
flight management system determines a four-dimensional flight
trajectory comprising a three-dimensional trajectory and
indications of corresponding times of passage, and said flight
computer comprises means for comparing this four-dimensional
flight trajectory with the actual position of the aircraft and with
the current time, and for deducing therefrom speed directives
forming part of said guidance orders.
(Id. at col. 4, 11. 31-3 8).
Closse further discloses that its guidance device includes a "means for
formulating a four-dimensional flight trajectory making it possible to
comply with a particular spacing with respect to at least one other aircraft"
(id. at col. 4, 11. 51-55). In doing so, Closse discloses that its guidance
device includes a "means for sending at least said flight trajectory out of the
aircraft, in particular destined for ground controllers and/or destined for
surrounding aircraft" (id. at col. 4, 11. 39--43). Closse also discloses that its
flight computer 7 includes:
means 23 for formulating a four-dimensional flight trajectory,
making it possible to comply with a particular spacing with
respect to at least one other aircraft. To do this, the flight
computer 7 receives from the flight management system 3 the
three-dimensional position and the speed of the airplane to be
followed, as well as the directive and the type of spacing, and
said means 23 formulate the four-dimensional trajectory to
which the aircraft must adhere. This function makes it possible
to manage a spacing of the aircraft in the environs of points of
entry to a controlled air zone, thereby making it possible in
4
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
particular to ease air control and improve the flow of air tratlic.
In a variant embodiment, the processing operations implemented
by means 23 may also be implemented by the means (not
represented) which are integrated into the flight management
system 3.
(Id. at col. 7, 11. 41-58).
Closse also discloses:
guidance device 1 can comprise standard sending means 30
which are connected by way of a link 31 for example to said
flight management system 3 and which are able to send out of
the aircraft, for example in the form of electromagnetic waves
OE, in particular said flight trajectory which has been determined
by said flight management system 3. Said means 30 may send
the flight trajectory to controllers on the ground and/or to aircraft
in the close environment of the aircraft equipped with the
guidance device 1 in accordance with the invention. Dual
sending such as this relates to a global function dubbed ASAS
("Airborne Separation Assurance System"), the aim of which is
to improve air traffic management.
(Id. at col. 8, 11. 17-29).
Klooster is directed to "a system for time of arrival control of a
vehicle using available speed range" (Klooster col. 1, 11. 8-10). Klooster
discloses that its "vehicle control system 700 includes an input device 702
configured to receive a required time of arrival at a waypoint and a processor
704 communicatively coupled to the input device" (id. at col. 7, 11. 43--46).
Klooster further discloses:
processor 704 is further programmed to generate a first speed
profile wherein the first speed profile is the speed profile
necessary to meet the intermediate control time, starting from the
current aircraft position at the current time and to generate a
second speed profile wherein the second speed profile is the
speed profile necessary to meet the RT A starting from the
intermediate control point at the intermediate control time.
5
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
Processor 704 is further programmed to generate the reference
time profile using the first speed profile up to the intermediate
control point and the second speed profile between the
intermediate control point and the RT A waypoint.
(Id. at col. 7, 11. 56-67).
Appellants argue that the combination of Closse and Klooster fails to
disclose or suggest "a required time of arrival (RT A) system," as recited by
limitation [b] of claim 1, because the portions of Closse cited by the
Examiner refer to "the guidance device 1 (which is the Examiner's chosen
Autopilot)" (Appeal Br. 9-10). However, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive at least because "the guidance device 1," disclosed in Closse, is
not limited solely to the "autopilot," recited in claim 1; rather, the
"autopilot" is just a portion of the guidance device 1 depicted in Figure 1. In
this regard, Closse discloses that guidance device 1, depicted in Figure 1,
includes a "means of actuation of control members (air foils, etc.)" which
executes guidance orders (Closse col. 2, 11. 39-50, see also id. at col. 3, 11.
33--41), and as such, constitutes "an autopilot." We note that this "means of
actuation" is only part of the "guidance device 1," depicted in Figure 1, upon
which the Examiner relies (see Final Act. 3). Thus, Appellants' argument is
not persuasive at least because the cited "guidance device 1" is not limited
solely to an autopilot; but rather, to a guidance device 1 which includes "at
least one navigation database 2," "at least one flight management system 3,"
"a flight computer 7, and "standard means of actuation 9" (Closse col. 5,
11. 17--40).
Equally unpersuasive is Appellants' argument that "[ n ]owhere is any
component in Closse described as being a RT A system 'configured to
determine a RTA trajectory of the aircraft based on an RTA of the aircraft at
6
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
a waypoint along the flight plan"' (Appeal Br. 10). In this regard, Closse
discloses that its
flight management system determines a four-dimensional flight
trajectory comprising a three-dimensional trajectory and
indications of corresponding times of passage, and said flight
computer comprises means for comparing this four-dimensional
flight trajectory with the actual position of the aircraft and with
the current time, and for deducing therefrom speed directives
forming part of said guidance orders.
(Closse col. 4, 11. 31-38).
We find that this disclosure describes a RT A system, as required by
limitation [b] of claim 1. We note this interpretation is reasonable in light of
Appellants' Specification which discloses that "[a] flight management
system (PMS) is an onboard system that may include RT A capability. This
RTA capability allows an aircraft to 'self-deliver' to a specified waypoint or
waypoints of a flight plan at a specified time along a four-dimensional
trajectory (latitude, longitude, altitude and time)" (Spec. i-f 4).
Appellants also argue that Closse fails to disclose or suggest an
"airborne separation assurance system (ASAS)" because
the device called an ASAS by Closse is expressly described as a
"standard sending means 30" (See FIG. 1, #30) that
communicates with the PMS (i.e., the Examiner's autopilot) and
sends out of the aircraft the flight trajectory determined by the
PMS (i.e., the Examiner's autopilot) to the ground and to other
aircraft.
(Appeal Br. 10-11 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2-3).
However, Closse describes that its "means 23 for formulating a four-
dimensional flight trajectory[] mak[ es] it possible to comply with a
particular spacing with respect to at least one other aircraft" (Closse col. 7,
11. 41--46). Closse further discloses "[t]o do this, the flight computer 7
7
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
receives from the flight management system 3 the three-dimensional
position and the speed of the airplane to be followed, as well as the directive
and the type of spacing, and said means 23 formulate the four-dimensional
trajectory to which the aircraft must adhere" (id. at col. 7, 11. 46-51,
emphasis added).
In our view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
understand that the "sending means 30" in Closse is not limited to only
sending flight trajectory information out of the aircraft "to the ground and to
other aircraft," as Appellants assert; but rather, capable of bi-directional
"[d]ual sending," as it relates to "a global function dubbed ASAS ('Airborne
Separation Assurance System'), the aim of which is to improve air traffic
management" (see id. at col. 8, 11. 26-29). Thus, we find that Closse
discloses "determin[ing] a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval
from a first reference aircraft," as recited by limitation [ c] of claim 1. We
note that this interpretation is reasonable in light of Appellants'
Specification which discloses that "[t]he ASAS 120 tracks the position of the
other reference aircraft 110 and compiles an own ship trajectory to maintain
station on one particular reference aircraft based on stationing instructions
10 received from an ATC 125" (Spec. i-f 27) and defines the term "compile"
"in the broad sense of the word as in assembling, collecting or calculating
and is not intended to be restricted to the meaning of 'compiling' as used in
the art of computer programming" (id. at i-f 33). Thus, Appellants' argument
is not persuasive.
Appellants also argue that Closse fails to disclose "an airborne
separation assurance system (ASAS) ... configured to determine a spacing
trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first reference aircraft," as
8
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
recited by limitation [ c] of claim 1, because spacing trajectory is determined
"by the Examiner's autopilot in Closse" and not the ASAS (Appeal Br. 10-
11 ). Appellants' argument, however, is not persuasive at least because it is
not commensurate in scope with the language of the claim. In this regard,
we note that limitation [ c] recites "an airborne separation assurance system
(ASAS) in operable communication with the RTA and configured to
determine a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first
reference aircraft" (emphasis added), which we interpret to mean that the
determination is made by the ASAS in cooperation with the RT A system.
This interpretation is consistent with the language of limitation [b ], which
recites "a required time of arrival (R TA) system in operable communication
with the autopilot, the RT A system configured to determine a RT A
trajectory of the aircraft based on an RTA of the aircraft at a waypoint along
the flight plan" (emphasis added), and, thus, makes clear that the
determination is made by the RT A system alone.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Closse fails
to discloses an RT A system, as required by limitations [b] and [ c], because
"the Examiner specifically relies on Klooster as describing an R TA system"
(see Appeal Br. 12). Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner does
not specifically rely on Klooster to disclose an RT A system but rather, cites
"Klooster to provide a more complete way of controlling an arrival time of
an autopilot flight plan" (Final Act. 4). In this regard, the Examiner makes
clear that "Closse teaches autopilot, RT A, waypoint and ASAS as all
pertinent limitations, while Klooster is another reference that teaches
autopilot, trajectory and waypoint, with more emphasis on R TA" (id. at 3-
4).
9
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11, which are
not argued separately.
Dependent claim 4
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "[i]n light of the discussion above in regard to
independent claim 1, neither Closse nor Klooster describes an ASAS system
that is configured to determine a spacing trajectory based on a spacing
interval from a first reference aircraft" (Appeal Br. 12-13; see also Reply
Br. 3). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4
for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 5
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "[i]n light of the discussion above in regard to
independent claim 1, neither Closse nor Klooster describes an ASAS system
that is 'configured to visually provide maneuvering data to a pilot in regard
to either the spacing trajectory, the RTA trajectory or both the spacing
trajectory and the RTA trajectory[']" (Appeal Br. 13). However, as
discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive.
10
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 5
for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Independent claim 6 and dependent claim 8
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
proposed combination of Deker and Closse does not disclose or suggest
"determining if the spacing interval to the first reference aircraft will be
violated while executing the RTA trajectory," as recited by claim 6 (Appeal
Br. 13-14). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Deker and Closse discloses the argued limitation (Final Act. 7-8 (citing
Deker i189)).
Deker is directed to an aircraft flight management system which
ensures "compliance with time constraints and/or relative spacing
constraints" (Deker i-f l ). More particularly, Deker discloses:
[i]n the case of maintaining separation, the principle consists in
acquiring the position of the preceding aircraft by ADS-B,
comparing it in real time through a Situation Awareness module
880 with the current position of the aircraft 870 and if the
distance is insufficient for the safety separation, the trajectory is
recalculated 820 by lengthening (if the two aircraft are getting
closer) or shortening (if the two aircraft are moving further apart)
for example the current section (general case) so as to keep the
separation constant. The trajectory modification, previously
accepted by the pilot, is dispatched to the guidance 800 which
will be slaved thereto. The flight plan is not modified for all that
and the guidance is done automatically by the PMS ("managed"
mode).
(Id. at i1 89).
11
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
Appellants argue that claim 6 recites that the determining step
determines whether the spacing interval will be violated in the future,
whereas Deker "compar[es] an aircraft position in real time and 'if the
distance is insufficient' the trajectory is lengthened" (see Appeal Br. 13-14).
However, we agree with the Examiner that Deker discloses the argued
limitation (see Ans. 8). In this regard, Deker discloses modifying its flight
plan if it determines that there is insufficient distance for maintaining
separation with another aircraft (see Deker i-f 89). Thus, Deker determines
"whether the spacing interval will be violated in the future" (i.e., whether
there will be insufficient spacing at a particular trajectory), and as such,
discloses the argued limitation.
Appellants also argue that the combination of Deker and Closse fails
to disclose or suggest "compiling a first spacing trajectory based at least
upon a spacing interval to a first reference aircraft by an airborne separation
assurance system," as recited by independent claim 6, because "as discussed
above in regard to the rejection[] of independent claim 1, Closse describes
its ASAS as being merely a 'standard communications device 30'" (Appeal
Br. 13-14). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the
"sending means 30" in Closse is not limited to only sending flight trajectory
information out of the aircraft. Furthermore, as discussed above, Closse
describes that its "means 23 for formulating a four-dimensional flight
trajectory[] mak[ es] it possible to comply with a particular spacing with
respect to at least one other aircraft" (Closse col. 7, 11. 41--46). Closse
further discloses "[t]o do this, flight computer 7 receives from the flight
management system 3 the three-dimensional position and the speed of the
airplane to be followed, as well as the directive and the type of spacing, and
12
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
said means 23 formulate the four-dimensional trajectory to which the aircraft
must adhere" (id. at col. 7, 11. 46-51, emphasis added). Thus, Closse
discloses "compiling a first spacing trajectory based at least upon a spacing
interval to a first reference aircraft by an airborne separation assurance
system," as recited by claim 1, and as such, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8, which is not argued
separately.
Independent claim 12
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
the proposed combination of Deker and Closse does not disclose or suggest
"compiling a spacing trajectory by an airborne separation assurance system
based at least in part upon a spacing interval requirement," as recited by
claim 12 (Appeal Br. 14--15). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Deker and Closse discloses the argued limitation (see Final
Act. 9 (citing Closse col. 4, 11. 25-30, col. 4, 11. 39--43, col. 7, 11. 42--46, col.
8, 11. 17-29)).
As discussed above, Closse describes that its "means 23 for
formulating a four-dimensional flight trajectory[] mak[es] it possible to
comply with a particular spacing with respect to at least one other aircraft"
(Closse col. 7, 11. 41--46). Closse further discloses "[t]o do this, flight
computer 7 receives from the flight management system 3 the three-
13
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
dimensional position and the speed of the airplane to be followed, as well as
the directive and the type of spacing, and said means 23 formulate the four-
dimensional trajectory to which the aircraft must adhere" (id. at col. 7, 11.
46-51, emphasis added). Thus, Closse discloses "compiling a spacing
trajectory by an airborne separation assurance system based at least in part
upon a spacing interval requirement," as recited by claim 12, and as such,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claims 13 and 16--18
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Deker, upon which the Examiner
relies, fails to disclose or suggest the subject matter of dependent claim 13
(see Appeal Br. 15). In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cites Figures 4
and 6, paragraphs 49, 60, 65, 93, and claims 1-3 of Deker, as disclosing the
argued limitation (Ans. 9-10). We agree with Appellants.
As Appellants' point out, the cited portions of Deker "describe
various embodiments where a new trajectory is determined in order to close
a time constraint[, but] are silent about creating a new RTA trajectory when
a spacing requirement to an aircraft has been reestablished," as required by
claim 13 (see Appeal Br. 15). We also note that the Examiner neither
responds to Appellants' argument in the Answer nor explains how the cited
portions of Deker disclose or suggest the argued limitation. Therefore, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
14
Appeal2013-008909
Application 12/849,637
§ 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 16-18 which are dependent therein.
Dependent claim 15
Claim 15 depends from dependent claim 13.3 The rejection of
dependent claim 15 based on Estkowski, in combination with Deker and
Closse, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 13,
as described above. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of dependent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set
forth above with respect to dependent claim 13.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 13 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
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-IN-PART
3 We note that claim 15 depends on cancelled claim 14, presently. In a claim
amendment, filed March 23, 2012, Appellants' cancelled claim 14 which
was dependent on claim 13. Thus, for purposes of this appeal only, we will
assume claim 15 depends on claim 13.
15