Ex Parte Shukla

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

13744429 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/744,429 01/18/2013 Vijay SHUKLA
40317 7590 06/24/2016
GLOBAL IP SERVICES, PLLC
10 CRESTWOOD LANE
NASHUA, NH 03062
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.
XA3199US 2520
EXAMINER
EL CHANT!, HUSSEIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
pnama@globalipservices.com
docketing@globalipservices.com
pradeep@globalipservices.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJA Y SHUKLA
Appeal2014-007636
Application 13/744,429 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-19, 21-28, and 30-34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Herkes (US 2011/0046818 Al, pub. Feb. 24,
2011). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, "[ t ]he real party in interest ... is the assignee,
Airbus Engineering Centre India." Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007636
Application 13/744,429
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11, 24, and 31 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for providing an aircraft noise advisory during
departure and/or arrival of an aircraft, comprising:
obtaining predefined allowab 1 e aircraft noise level
information associated with each of a plurality of aircraft noise
sensors located in the vicinity of airports;
presenting predefined allowable aircraft noise level
information associated with one or more of the plurality of
aircraft noise sensors on a display device in the aircraft, based on
a current location of the aircraft, upon receiving a noise data
request from a pilot;
obtaining current aircraft noise level information from one
of the one or more aircraft noise sensors during the departure
and/or arrival;
comparing the current aircraft noise level information with
predefined allowable aircraft noise level information associated
with the one of the one or more aircraft noise sensors; and
displaying the aircraft noise advisory on the display
device based on an outcome of the comparison, wherein the
aircraft noise advisory comprises suggested aircraft
performance parameters and a predicted flight path based on the
suggested aircraft performance parameters.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the "displaying" step of independent claim 1,
and similar limitations of independent claims 11, 24, and 31, reads on
Herkes's Figure 7 and paragraphs 64, 65. See Final Act. 2-3. The
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Herkes, should be withdrawn because Herkes' s
2
Appeal2014-007636
Application 13/744,429
planned path 706 does not correspond to the "predicted flight path" as
required by independent claims 1, 11, 24, and 31. See Br. 12.
At the outset, we note that the Appellant's Specification discloses the
terms "flight path" and "predicted flight path." Spec., para. 46, Fig. 5. We
understand these terms as different terms having different meanings. For
example, Figure 5 depicts "flight path 400" as a separate path from
"predicted flight path 500." Moreover, the Specification describes a
"predicted flight path" as "a flight path which the aircraft 202 will follow if
the suggested aircraft performance parameters are executed by the pilot."
Spec., para. 40. In other words, the "predicted flight path" is not a "flight
path," unless it is executed by the pilot. See also AMERICAN HERITAGE®
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2011)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flight+path (last visited June 17, 2016)
(defining "flight path" as "[t]he precise route taken or due to be taken
through the air by an aircraft or spacecraft.").
The Examiner appears to find that Herkes's display, as depicted in
Figure 7, corresponds to the "aircraft noise advisory" required by claim 1,
which includes "a predicted flight path based on the suggested aircraft
performance parameters." Final Act. 3. Figure 7 depicts display 700, which
presents noise data compared to predetermined limits on a map by use of a
color-coded graduated scale; for example, red, yellow, and green, which
correspond to values that are over, within, and under, respectively, the
predetermined limits. See Herkes, paras. 14, 64, 65. However, this display
only depicts flight path 706, which is described as a "planned path." See
Herkes, para. 63. As such, it appears that the Examiner finds that planned
path 706 is a "predicted flight path." See Final Act. 2-3. We disagree.
3
Appeal2014-007636
Application 13/744,429
Planned path 706 does not correspond to a "predicted flight path" because it
does not appear to be a flight path that an "aircraft ... will follow if the
suggested aircraft performance parameters are executed by the pilot."
Rather, planned path 706 appears to be a "flight path" because it is a path
that the pilot takes and is due to take the airplane.
In the Answer, the Examiner quotes portions of Herkes' s disclosure
and determines that Herkes' s disclosure provides a pilot with the ability to
enter flight profile parameters to provide flight paths and to select an
"optimum flight path which has noise[] levels below an allowable
threshold." Ans. 8-9. Moreover, the Examiner determines that the
foregoing corresponds to "a predicted flight path based on the suggested
aircraft performance parameters," as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 8-9.
The Examiner, however, fails to explain adequately how the flight
profile parameters and flight paths are displayed as part of an "aircraft noise
advisory," as required by claim 1. Stated differently, although the pilot
entered flight profile parameters and flight paths maybe an aspect of
Herkes' s flight management system, it is not clear that the pilot entered
flight profile parameters and flight paths are part of display 700, which is
necessary to correspond to the "aircraft noise advisory," as required by
claim 1. Also, the Examiner fails to explain adequately how the "optimum
flight path," after being selected by the pilot, is a "predicted flight path" as
opposed to a planned flight path.
Thus, for the forgoing reasons, the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claims as anticipated by Herkes is not
sustained. For similar reasons the Examiner's rejection of independent
4
Appeal2014-007636
Application 13/744,429
claims 11, 24, and 31, and their respective dependent claims as anticipated
by Herkes is not sustained.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-19,
21-28, and 30-34.
REVERSED
5