Ex Parte Schwartz et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2019

15252994 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/252,994 08/31/2016
60476 7590 04/19/2019
PA TENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Samantha Schwartz
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.
16-0565-US-NP
(24691-906)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1681
EXAMINER
GIRMA, FEKADESELASS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2019 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMANTHA SCHWARTZ and KA TIE M. REID
Appeal2018-006723
Application 15/252,994 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We
reverse.
Appellants disclose an aircraft pilot display system and method for
use by a pilot of an aircraft during takeoff (Title; Spec. ,r 1; Abstract).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal2018-006723
Application 15/252,994
Appellants claim a yaw feedback system that displays a yaw difference to
the pilot during takeoff (Spec. ,r,r 1, 4---6). Claim 1 is exemplary, and is
reproduced below with bracketed lettering and emphases added to the
disputed portions of the claim:
1. A yaw feedback system ( 605) for use by a pilot of an
aircraft (100) during takeoff, comprising:
[A] a processor (615) configured to determine a yaw
difference between a current track of the aircraft and a runway
centerline (106);
a runway centerline indicator (210) configured to
virtually extend a runway visual range "RVR" for a pilot of the
aircraft; and
[BJ a yaw feedback indicator (650) coupled to the
processor and configured to prompt the pilot for a yaw input to
compensate for the yaw difference, and to convey, to the pilot, a
magnitude and a direction of the yaw difference. 2
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 7-13) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-5) that the Examiner's rejections
of:
2 Appellants amended claims 1 and 15 to include the recited language, "and
to convey, to the pilot, a magnitude and a direction of the yaw difference,"
and claim 8 to include the language "the yaw feedback indicator configured
to convey, to the pilot, a magnitude and a direction of the yaw difference"
(Appellants' Amendment filed Aug. 8, 2017, pp. 2--4). The original
Drawings (Figs. 4, 5) and Specification (Spec. ,r,r 11, 12) show and describe
the display of a magnitude and direction needed to compensate or overcome
the determined yaw difference, not a display of the actual ( and claimed)
determined yaw difference. Upon further examination, the Examiner should
consider whether there is any written description issue under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) in this regard.
2
Appeal2018-006723
Application 15/252,994
(i) claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Ganguli, et. al. (US 8,560,149 Bl; issued Oct. 15, 2013)
(hereinafter, "Ganguli") (Final Act. 2-8);
(ii) claims 3 and 12 as being unpatentable over Ganguli and Colby
(US 2015/0169273 Al; published Jun. 18, 2015) (Final Act. 9);
(iii) claims 4 and 20 as being unpatentable over Ganguli and Saverio
(US 4,006,632; issued Feb. 8, 1977) (Final Act. 10-11); and
(iv) claim 14 as being unpatentable over Ganguli and Kneuper et al.,
(US 2016/0176541 Al; published Jun. 23, 2016) (hereinafter, "Kneuper")
(Final Act. 11-12) are in error, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-14).
Definition of Yaw
Appellants set forth discussion (see App. Br. 2) regarding the
definition of"yaw." According to Appellants, "[t]he three ax[e]s of aircraft
rotation are the yaw axis, the pitch axis, and the roll axis. The yaw axis is
drawn vertically through the aircraft's center-of-gravity, and rotation about
the yaw axis is simply referred to as yaw" (App. Br. 2). According to this
description, and as further evidenced by the NASA dictionary definition of
yaw ("The rotational or oscillatory movement of an aircraft, rocket, or the
like about a vertical axis[.]"), 3 one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand "yaw" or "yaw difference" to be an angle or an amount of
rotation about a vertical axis. Further provided is an example showing the
definition of "yaw" as illustrated by Vishnu G Nair et al., Aircraft Yaw
3 See https://erjsc.nasa.gov/seh/y.htm1, last visited April 9, 2019.
3
Appeal2018-006723
Application 15/252,994
Control System using LQR and Fuzzy Logic Controller, International
Journal of Computer Applications, reproduced below. 4
Rudder
Elevator
Len Aileron
z
X '
International Journal of Computer Applications Figure 1 showing yaw.
Limitation [A]
Appellants argue (App. Br. 7-8) that Ganguli does not teach or
disclose a processor configured to determine a yaw difference between a
current track of the aircraft and a runway centerline (see, e.g., limitation [A]
recited in claim 1 ). With respect to the interpretation of "yaw difference,"
we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 9-10) that Ganguli determines or
computes a yaw difference as the "ground track angle (x(t))" (col. 5, 11. 66-
67; see also Fig. 4).
4
https ://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/7 cbf; 5a3 cc l 9c05beaf8dfl 9f24e8 80c23 c5 3 0
131.pdf, last visited April 9, 2019; see also International Journal of
Computer Applications.
4
Appeal2018-006723
Application 15/252,994
Ganguli discloses that tracking estimator 310 computes a heading
error 330 at a look ahead distance 332 based on the "travel of aircraft 250 at
a ground track angle x(t) with respect to the virtual runway centerline 235,
and velocity (shown as V(t)), and the distance to the look ahead point
(shown as xLA)" ( col. 5, 1. 61---col. 6, 1. 2; see also Fig. 4). Therefore, in
order to compute the heading error 330, Ganguli must necessarily determine
the value of the ground track angle x(t), i.e., yaw difference.
However, Appellants' argument with respect to claim limitation [A] is
not persuasive because Ganguli's ground track angle (x(t)) represents the
"yaw difference between a current track of the aircraft and a runway
centerline," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Because the ground track angle
(x(t)), and then the heading error (330) (Fig. 5A), are computed by a
processor (see Ganguli Fig. 5A, 310), we agree with the Examiner's finding
that Ganguli teaches or suggests determining a yaw difference as recited in
limitation [A] of claim 1, and as similarly recited in claims 8 and 15.
Limitation [BJ
Appellants argue (App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 1-5) that Ganguli fails to
teach a yaw feedback indicator for an aircraft that conveys, to a pilot, a
magnitude and direction of a yaw difference computed as a difference
between a current track of the aircraft and a runway centerline (see, e.g.,
limitation [BJ recited in claim 1 ). We agree.
Specifically, although Ganguli discloses visually displaying "total
lateral displacement (340)" and "centerline tracking feedback (350)" (Fig.
5A), which are represented on a "display (520)" as "look-ahead symbol
(532)" (Fig. 5B), we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4) that
Ganguli is silent as to "convey[ing] a magnitude and direction of a yaw
5
Appeal2018-006723
Application 15/252,994
difference, which is an angle computed between a track of the aircraft and
the runway centerline" (App. Br. 8-9). Furthermore, although Ganguli
discloses "maximum takeoff deviation criteria" (see col. 8, 11. 11-32), we
agree with Appellants (see Reply Br. 2) that the deviation criteria described
are calculated in meters/distance, not yaw, which would be expressed as an
angle in degrees ( or radians).
Although Ganguli (Fig. 5A) discloses calculating a heading error
(330) based on a ground track angle (x(t)) (which is equivalent to the recited
yaw difference), and thus the heading error (330) is proportional to or based
at least in part on a "yaw" or "yaw difference," these values only contribute
to the computed lateral look-ahead error (340), which is resultantly
displayed as look-ahead symbol (532) (see col. 5, 1. 47---col. 6, 1. 20). In
other words, the yaw difference itself is not displayed or fed back to the pilot
through the cockpit display 170. 5 In addition, we agree with Appellants (see
App. Br. 11) that Ganguli computes and displays a lateral look ahead error
(340) as a look-ahead symbol (532) even if the calculated heading error
(330) and ground track angle (x(t)) are equal to zero. Therefore, we agree
with Appellants (App. Br. 11) that Ganguli fails to teach or suggest
conveying a magnitude and direction of a yaw difference to a pilot, as set
forth in claims 1, 8, and 15.
5 Ganguli uses the ground track angle x(t) to computer the heading error 330
and then the total lateral look-ahead error 340, and finally the centerline
tracking feedback signal 350 (see col. 5, 1. 61---col. 6, 1. 11). Only the
centerline tracking feedback signal 350 is "used to provide visual feedback
for the pilot via cockpit display 170" ( col. 6, 11. 13-14 ).
6
Appeal2018-006723
Application 15/252,994
In this light, we agree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7-12)
that Ganguli fails to teach or suggest a yaw feedback indicator, for an
aircraft, that conveys, to a pilot, a magnitude and direction of a yaw
difference computed as a difference between a current track of the aircraft
and a runway centerline, as set forth in each of independent claims 1, 8, and
15. Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner has not properly
established factual determinations and articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for claims 1, 8,
and 15, resulting in a failure to establish prima facie obviousness.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 over the base reference of Ganguli.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting (i) claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13, and 15-19
over Ganguli alone; (ii) claims 3 and 12 over the combination of Ganguli
and Colby; (iii) claims 4 and 20 over the combination of Ganguli and
Saverio; and (iv) claim 14 over the combination of Ganguli and Kneuper.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7