12003307 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2013)

Ex Parte Skarman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2013

12003307 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ERIK SKARMAN ____________________ Appeal 2011-009887 Application 12/003,307 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009887 Application 12/003,307 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a method for collision avoidance in an air-borne vehicle.” Spec. 1:9-10. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal, and claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device at an airborne vehicle, comprising: a flight control system arranged to control the behaviour of the airborne vehicle based on acceleration commands, a first control unit arranged to provide said acceleration commands to the flight control system based on planned missions or direct commands, a detection unit configured to detect whether the airborne vehicle is on a collision course, a collision avoidance unit comprising a second control unit arranged to directly feed forced acceleration commands to the flight control system upon detection that the airborne vehicle is on a collision course. Evidence Relied Upon Nakamura Tran ’679 Tran ’396 US 5,868,358 US 6,262,679 B1 US 6,278,396 B1 Feb. 9, 1999 Jul. 17, 2001 Aug. 21, 2001 Appeal 2011-009887 Application 12/003,307 3 The Rejections The following rejections are before us on appeal: I. Claims 1-3 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakamura and Tran ’396. II. Claims 4-10 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakamura, Tran ’396, Tran ’679. OPINION Claim 1 is directed to a device on an airborne vehicle that includes a collision avoidance system comprising a second control unit arranged to “directly feed forced acceleration commands to the flight control system” when the detection unit detects that the airborne vehicle is on a collision course. Independent claim 11 contains a similar limitation. The Specification describes that the detection unit is arranged to detect whether the airborne vehicle is on a collision course, and upon such detection, the second control unit feds forced acceleration commands to the flight control system. Spec. 3:26-30. The Specification also describes: The device provides a robust control of avoidance manoeuvres. This is due to the reason that no avoidance manoeuvre calculations are performed. The device is arranged to directly form data for input to the flight control system instead of first calculating an avoidance manoeuvre trajectory and then form data for input to the flight control system based on the calculated avoidance manoeuvre trajectory. The device is especially advantageous when the airborne vehicle is on a collision course with another airborne vehicle. Spec. 4:1-8 (emphasis added). Appeal 2011-009887 Application 12/003,307 4 In light of this disclosure, contrasting the situation not considered “directly” arranged, one skilled in the art would understand that data for input to the flight control system (forced acceleration commands) is “directly” formed only when an avoidance maneuver trajectory need not be calculated prior to input of that data (the forced acceleration commands) when the airborne vehicle is on a collision course with another vehicle. In other words, upon detection that the vehicle is on a collision course with another vehicle, the forced acceleration commands are input to the flight control system without the need for first calculating an avoidance maneuver trajectory. This implies the calculation of an avoidance maneuver trajectory (and the forced acceleration commands to accomplish that trajectory) was performed prior to detection so that the commands may be fed to the system without the need for such calculation after detection. Therefore, the second control unit of claim 1 feeds forced acceleration commands to the flight control system upon detection by the detection unit that the airborne vehicle is on a collision course with another airborne vehicle, and those commands are directly fed in that there is no need for calculation of those commands after detection. Both of the rejections before us on appeal rely upon the Examiner’s finding that Tran ‘369 discloses a second control unit arranged to directly feed forced acceleration commands to the flight control system upon detection that another airborne vehicle is on a collision course, as claimed. Ans. 4 (Rejection I), 6 (Rejection II, relying upon the earlier finding). This finding is based upon the Examiner’s interpretation that in the context of an airborne vehicle, “directly” means “without the intervention of a pilot or a ground station.” Ans. 9. Appeal 2011-009887 Application 12/003,307 5 The Examiner’s claim construction is incorrect because, as explained, supra, when read in light of the Specification, the recited forced acceleration commands are “directly” fed to the flight control system only when no calculation of the forced acceleration commands need be performed after detection that the airborne vehicle is on a collision course with another airborne vehicle. The Examiner found that Tran ‘396 discloses a Missionized Midair Collision Avoidance System (MCAS) that: provides quick time response, calculates the control guidance necessary to maintain lateral and vertical offset from the leader in the case of a formation flight, and, in the case of an unmanned aerial vehicle, is coupled to the flight control system for automatic control. Ans. 8-9. However, as a result of relying upon an incorrect claim construction, the Examiner did not make a finding that Tran ‘396 discloses a second control unit that transmits commands to the flight control system upon detection that the airborne vehicle is on a collision course with another airborne vehicle, without the need for calculation of the forced acceleration commands after that detection. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 2, 3, and 12-14. In Rejection II, the Examiner does not rely upon Tran ‘679 to correct this deficiency (Ans. 5-6), and consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4-10 and 14-17. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-17. REVERSED Klh