Ex Parte Shaw

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2014

11375486 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/375,486 03/14/2006 Robert L. Shaw FCA 0001 PA/33558.3 9953
7590 01/30/2014
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
One Dayton Centre
Suite 1300
One South Main Street
Dayton, OH 45402-2023
EXAMINER
KING, RODNEY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT L. SHAW
____________________

Appeal 2012-002214
Application 11/375,486
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-002214
Application 11/375,486

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter.
1. A backup display system for use in a
general aviation aircraft, said backup display
system configured to provide flight condition
information in the event of partial or complete
inoperability of a primary flight instrument system
on said general aviation aircraft, said backup
display system comprising:
a source of electrical power situated on said
general aviation aircraft;
a plurality of sensors situated on said
general aviation aircraft and configured to collect
flight data;
a processor situated on said general aviation
aircraft and cooperative with said source of
electrical power and signally coupled to said
plurality of sensors such that said processor
operates on said collected flight data to generate at
least a portion of said flight condition information
with need for input from neither a global
positioning system nor an inertial navigation
system to said display system, said flight condition
information comprising at least flight path angle,
tum rate, and lateral acceleration; and
a display situated on said general aviation
aircraft and signally coupled to said processor such
that said display conveys said at least a portion of
Appeal 2012-002214
Application 11/375,486

3
said flight condition information in such a way as
to provide a pilot with a reduced cognitive
workload.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Arad US 5,103,224 Apr. 7, 1992
Katz US 2001/0039467 A1 Nov. 8, 2001
Ooga US 2002/0042673 A1 Apr. 11, 2002
Lin US 2002/0116126 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Levine US 2003/0135327 A1 July 17, 2003.

REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections.
I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-17, 19-23, and 25-28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Levine and Katz.1
II. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Levine, Katz, and Arad.
III. Claims 3, 4, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Levine, Katz, and Lin.
IV. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Levine, Katz, and Ooga.

1 In both the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer, the opening
sentence of rejection I omits mention of claims 13, 14, 16, and 17. Fin. Rej.
3; Ans. 5. The body of rejection I, however, discusses these claims in detail.
Fin. Rej. 12-14; Ans. 14-16. Accordingly, we consider these claims subject
to rejection I.
Appeal 2012-002214
Application 11/375,486

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant argues the Examiner has not established that the “GPS-free
or INS-free operational aspects of the present invention” would have been
obvious. App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant indicates that claim 1
captures such an operational aspect in the language “said processor operates
on said collected flight data to generate at least a portion of said flight
condition information with need for input from neither a global positioning
system nor an inertial navigation system to said display system.” See App.
Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Levine does not disclose this limitation of
claim 1, but that Levine’s backup display system meets the other limitations
of claim 1. Ans. 5-6. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Katz discloses a
processor that generates flight condition information with information from
an inclined turn rate sensor and a pitch level sensor, and that Katz says
nothing about using information from a global positioning system or an
inertial navigation system. Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that it would have
been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to apply the approach
disclosed with Katz’s processor in Levine’s system. And the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to do so. Id.
Appellant argues that Levine and Katz teach away and therefore do
not support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 5-6.
Appellant argues that Levine unequivocally discloses using GPS and INS
information in its backup display system. Id. at 5. With respect to Katz,
Appellant asserts that one could interpret Katz’s silence regarding GPS and
INS as either disavowing or not disavowing Levine’s use of GPS and INS.
Appeal 2012-002214
Application 11/375,486

5
Id. at 5-6. If one interprets Katz as disavowing GPS and INS, Appellant
argues, the rejection constitutes an excellent example of a prohibited
combination of disclosures that teach away because one disavows the
approach used by the other. Id. at 5. If one interprets Katz as not
disavowing GPS and INS, Appellant argues, “the proposed combination
would, in toto, continue to teach away from all of the independent claims
that expressly exclude a GPS or INS.” Id. at 6.
As Appellant notes (Id. at 5-6), a reference teaches away from a
claimed invention if “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Under this test, Appellant’s
arguments do not convince us that the cited references teach away from the
claimed invention. Appellant provides no support for the speculation that
one might interpret Katz as disavowing the approach disclosed by Levine.
Nor does Appellant present any evidence that either reference suggests
anything negative about operating a backup display system without using
INS or GPS information.
Indeed, Appellant provides no evidence or reasoning to convince us
that the differences between the disclosures of Levine and Katz amount to
anything other than disclosures of alternative approaches for a processor to
generate flight condition information in a backup display system. Without
more, the fact that Levine and Katz disclose alternative approaches does not
convince us that reading Levine and Katz would have discouraged or led a
Appeal 2012-002214
Application 11/375,486

6
person of ordinary skill in the art away from any approach for generating
flight condition information, including Appellant’s claimed approach.
Appellant and the Examiner also dispute whether Levine’s system
generates flight condition information without need for GPS or INS
information. Reply Br. 2-5. Because Appellant does not convince us of
error in the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious in
view of Katz to modify Levine generate flight condition information without
need for GPS or INS information, Appellant’s arguments that Levine itself
does not disclose such an approach do not apprise us of error in the
conclusion of obviousness.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not present separate
arguments for claims 2, 5, 7-17, 19-23, and 25-28. Accordingly, we sustain
rejection I

Rejection II
Appellant traverses the rejection of claim 18 by referring to the
arguments advanced against the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 6. For the
reasons discussed above, these arguments do not apprise us of error in the
rejection. Accordingly, we sustain rejection II.

Rejection III
Appellant argues claims 3, 4, and 24 as a group. See App. Br. 6-7.
We select claim 3 as representative. Claims 4 and 24 stand or fall with
representative claim 3.
Appeal 2012-002214
Application 11/375,486

7
Appellant argues that Lin discloses using GPS in its system. Id.
Accordingly, Appellant argues, “there is nothing in Lin that rectifies the
inability to combine Levine and Katz.” Id. As discussed above, Appellant’s
arguments regarding claim 1 do not convince us of any error in the
Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to combine the
disclosures of Levine and Katz, as Appellant does not convince us that the
references teach away from the claimed invention. For substantially the
same reasons, the mere fact that Lin discloses an approach that involves GPS
does not convince us that Lin teaches away from the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we sustain rejection III.

Rejection IV
Appellant traverses the rejection of claim 6 by referring to the
arguments advanced against the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 7. For the
reasons discussed above, these arguments do not apprise us of error in the
rejection. Accordingly, we sustain rejection IV.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28.
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).

AFFIRMED

pgc