Ex Parte Westerlund

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

12967883 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/967,883
78061 7590
Boeing (TLG)
c/o Toler Law Group
8500 Bluffstone Cove
Suite A201
Austin, TX 78759
12/14/2010
05/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary L. Westerlund
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.
10-0525 1364
EXAMINER
WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
docketinggroup@tlgiplaw.com
jj ordan @tlgiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY L. WESTERLUND
Appeal2014-005638
Application 12/967,883
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gary L. Westerlund (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1and3-16.2 Appeal Br. 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 2 and 17-20 have been cancelled. See Amendment dated July 24,
2013; see also Advisory Action dated Sept. 13, 2013.
Appeal2014-005638
Application 12/967,883
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below as the sole independent claim on appeal, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
determining, at a device, a location of an aircraft relative
to a taxiway having a curved section; and
determining, at a device, a first nose gear steering angle to
steer the aircraft through at least a first portion of the curved
section,
wherein the first nose gear steering angle is selected
to cause nose gear of the aircraft to depart a taxiway centerline
and to keep a steering point of the aircraft substantially over the
taxiway centerline as the aircraft traverses at least the first
portion of the curved section,
wherein the steering point is located between the
nose gear and main gear of the aircraft, and
wherein the steering point is located on a centerline
of the aircraft.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 6,411,890 Bl; iss. June 25,
2002) and Read (US 2009/0040072 Al; pub. Feb. 12, 2009).
Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zimmerman, Read, and De Boer (US 6,690,295 B 1; iss.
Feb. 10, 2004).
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Zimmerman, Read, and Dubourg (US 2008/0191903 Al; pub. Aug. 14,
2008).
2
Appeal2014-005638
Application 12/967,883
OPINION
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 15, and 16-Zimmerman and Read
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner found, inter alia, that
Zimmerman discloses a method of taxiing an aircraft relative to a curved
taxiway, wherein Zimmerman inherently determines, at a device (i.e.,
navigation system and controls), a nose gear steering angle. Final Act. 3
(citing Zimmerman, Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner further found that "[i]t is
known that [a] steering point is located between the nose gear and main gear
of the aircraft." Final Act. 4. 3 The Examiner also identifies a steering point
on the aircraft depicted in Figure 1, concluding that "the steering point is
maintained relative to the taxiway centerline" at each of the three positions
of the aircraft as shown in Figure 1. Ans. 2-3. The Examiner's Annotated
Figure 1 of Zimmerman is reproduced below:
3 The Examiner also found with respect to dependent claim 3 that "it is
inherent from Zimmerman that the aircraft ... has a steering point (i.e., ideal
point)." Final Act. 4 (citing Zimmerman, Fig. 1).
3
Appeal2014-005638
Application 12/967,883
t~: :_~l ~\
;:.;..;: ~~· ..
.· ..
·· ...
... ~~
:.~:~: :.:.:· .. :~=~; ~~~~X::&~) "..:~~~~: :,>{
~.~.:.:.· ..• : .:':~.·': ... '=.·: .. :·:.~~.~:.: ,·.·~~.,·.· :··•·;''.'' •. ·.,· ..:.-? -. ..; -~.. :~::«;:~"} ~;:)!}~~~~:~ f":~~::
:'.i k 7 w ··~