Ex Parte Ridenour

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12041868 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/041,868 03/04/2008 Richard Darrell Ridenour II
23619 7590 11/02/2016
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
1 E. Washington Street
Suite 2700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
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.
050847.00264 2277
EXAMINER
LAM, ELIZA ANNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
phxip@ squirepb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD DARRELL RIDENOUR II
Appeal2014-007528 1
Application 12/041,8682
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1. Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
April 22, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 21, 2014), the
Examiner's Supplemental Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 20, 2014), and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 21, 2012).
2. Appellant identifies Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems
LLC, as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2014-007528
Application 12/041,868
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates generally "to systems and
methods for terrain warning suppression using flight plan information"
(Spec. if 2).
Claims 1, 8, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
determining, with a processor, if terrain presents a hazard
to an aircraft based on a current position of the aircraft and an
intended flight plan for the aircraft; and
providing an alert if it is determined that the terrain
presents a hazard to the aircraft;
wherein determining if the terrain presents a hazard to the
aircraft further includes at least one of:
determining if the current position of the aircraft is within
any of one or more boundaries, each boundary surrounding at
least a portion of the intended flight plan; and
determining if the terrain is within the one or more
boundaries.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Muller (US 2003/0184450 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2003).
Claims 3-7, 10-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Muller and Ishihara (US 6, 707 ,394 B2, iss. Mar. 16,
2004).
2
Appeal2014-007528
Application 12/041,868
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 8, 13, and dependent claim 14
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Muller fails
to disclose
wherein determining if the terrain presents a hazard to the
aircraft further includes at least one of:
determining if the current position of the aircraft is within
any of one or more boundaries, each boundary surrounding at
least a portion of the intended flight plan; and
determining if the terrain is within the one or more
boundaries
(See Appeal Br. 6-10; see also Reply Br. 3-5). The Examiner cites
paragraphs 110 and 17 4 of Muller as disclosing the argued limitations (see
Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 2-3 and 8-9). However, we agree with Appellant
that there is nothing in the cited portions that discloses "determining if the
terrain presents a hazard to the aircraft further," as required by independent
claim 1.
Muller is directed to
a terrain awareness system (T AS) and more particularly to a
system for alerting a pilot of an aircraft of a dangerous flight
condition which monitors the position as well as the trajectory of
an aircraft based upon a satellite-based navigation system, such
as a global positioning system (GPS), to provide a LOOK-
AHEAD/LOOK-DOWN as well as LOOK-UP terrain advisory
and warning indications based upon stored terrain data which
provides relatively longer warning times than known ground
proximity warning system while minimizing nuisance warnings.
(Muller i-f 3). Muller discloses that "current longitude and latitude of the
aircraft from the GPS 22 are applied to an Airport and Terrain Search
Algorithm, indicated by a block 29, which includes location search logic for
3
Appeal2014-007528
Application 12/041,868
determining the terrain data, as well as the airport data surrounding the
aircraft" (id. i-f 61 ). Muller further discloses that "GPS inputs, along with
terrain and airport data surrounding the aircraft from the search algorithm,
indicated by the block 29, are applied to the LOOK-AHEAD warning
generator 30, which provides both terrain advisory and terrain warning
signals based upon the position and projected flight path of the aircraft"
(id.).
In this regard, Muller discloses that "[ t ]he terrain floor relates to a
distance L'iH below the aircraft" (id. i-f 101 ). Muller also discloses that
"terrain advisory boundaries are based upon the relationship between the
flight path angle y and a first configurable datum, THETA I" (id. i-f 105) and
"[i]fthe flight path angle y is greater than THETAI[],then different terrain
advisory boundaries are provided" (id. i-f 107). Muller further discloses that
its terrain warning boundaries "indicate to the pilot of an aircraft conditions
when evasive action is required to avoid terrain contact" (id. i-f 110). More
particularly, Muller discloses that
terrain warning boundaries are based on the relationship of the
flight path angle of the aircraft relative to a second configurable
datum, THET A2. The datum THET A2 may be selected with an
upslope of, for example, 6°, which is equal to the average climb
capability of airliners. The datum THET A2 could be modified,
taking into consideration aircraft type, configuration, altitude and
time for takeoff. However, because of the longer LOOK-
AHEAD distance as discussed above for the terrain warning
boundaries, a terrain warning could occur before a terrain
advisory indication for extreme terrain conditions.
(Id.). Muller also discloses a display system which "provide[ s] a visual
indication of the terrain advisory and terrain warning indications discussed
above as a function of the current position of the aircraft. Background
4
Appeal2014-007528
Application 12/041,868
terrain information is also provided which provides an indication of
significant terrain relative to the current position of the aircraft" (id. i-f 17 4 ).
We have reviewed the cited portions of Muller and agree with
Appellant that Muller fails to disclose the argued limitations. More
particularly, we agree with Appellant that independent claim 1 does "not
merely recite a 'flight path' but an 'intended flight plan.' While the datum
of Muller et al. may be a 'function of the flight path,' it is not a function of
an 'intended flight plan,' which is what is claimed." (Reply Br. 4). Thus,
we fail to see, and the Examiner does not adequately explain, how Muller's
disclosure that its display system "provide[ s] a visual indication of the
terrain advisory and terrain warning indications discussed above as a
function of the current position of the aircraft" (Muller i-f 17 4 (emphasis
added)) discloses "determining ... if terrain presents a hazard to an aircraft
based on a current position of the aircraft and an intended flight plan for the
aircraft" much less doing so by "at least one of: determining if the current
position of the aircraft is within any of one or more boundaries, each
boundary surrounding at least a portion of the intended flight plan; and
determining if the terrain is within the one or more boundaries," as
independent claim 1 further requires.
Responding to Appellant's argument in the Response to Argument
section of the Answer, the Examiner takes the position that
as Appellant has not provided a special definition for the term
surrounding at least a portion of a flight plan, thus the broadest
reasonable interpretation is utilized. Examiner defines surround
as "to be on every side of (someone or something)" therefore the
broadest reasonable interpretation of "surrounding at least a
portion" includes vector that is a function of the flight path.
Therefore the configurable datum as in paragraph [0110]
5
Appeal2014-007528
Application 12/041,868
partially surround the ±light path. Muller additionally teaches
that terrain warning boundaries indicates evasive action required
to avoid terrain contact (paragraph [O 11 OJ).
(Ans. 10).
The difficulty with the Examiner's finding, as Appellant points out, is
that independent claim 1 "recites 'each boundary surrounding at least a
portion of the intended flight plan"' (Reply Br. 5). In contrast, Muller
discloses that its "terrain advisory and terrain warning signals [are] based
upon the position and projected flight path of the aircraft", neither of which
addresses a "boundary surrounding at least a portion of the intended flight
plan", as independent claim 1 requires (Muller i-f 61; see also id. i-f 174
(emphasis added)). As such, we agree with Appellant that Muller fails to
disclose the argued limitations of independent claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Independent claims 8 and 13
Independent claims 8 and 13 include a limitation similar to limitation
[d] in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on the same rationale
applied with respect to independent claim 1 (see Final Act. 4-5). Thus, for
the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 8 and 13, and claim 14 which depends from independent
claim 13, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
6
Appeal2014-007528
Application 12/041,868
Claims 3-7, 10-12, and 16-20 are rejected as obvious over
Muller and Ishihara
Claims 3-7, 10-12, and 16-20 depend from independent claims 1, 8,
and 13, respectively. The Examiner's rejection of claims 3-7, 10-12, and
16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ishihara, in combination with
Muller, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 13. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3-7, 10-12, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the independent
claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are not sustained.
REVERSED
7