Ex Parte WesterlundDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 3, 201612967883 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016) Copy Citation 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 ··~Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation