Gary A. Ostrom et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

13585276 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

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.
13/585,276 08/14/2012 Gary A. Ostrom H0035000 (002.2778) 3245
89955 7590 08/04/2020
HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 249
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
HAN, CHARLES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 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):
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
honeywell@lkglobal.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GARY A. OSTROM, YASUO ISHIHARA, and
STEVE C. JOHNSON
____________

Appeal 2018-008036
Application 13/585,276
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 11–15, and 17–23, which
are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honeywell
International Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008036
Application 13/585,276

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to providing an aural alert to a
helicopter pilot when computed airspeed decreases below a predetermined
speed. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent.
Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below with emphasis added, are illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
determining engine torque information with an engine
sensor;
determining vehicle position and airspeed information of
a vehicle with an air data computer;
receiving, at a processing device, the engine torque
information, the vehicle position, and the airspeed information;
determining, at the processing device, if operation intent
of vehicle meets at least one predefined criterion based on the
received engine torque information, vehicle position, and
airspeed information, the at least one predefined criterion being
a take-off or a go-around condition;
if the intent meets the at least one predefined criterion,
generating, at the processing device, a first low-speed alert with
an output device if airspeed is less than a best rate-of-climb
speed (Vbroc) by a threshold amount and an acceleration value
based on the airspeed is between a first acceleration value and a
second acceleration value; and
providing the first low-speed alert to an operator with an
output device.

Appeal 2018-008036
Application 13/585,276

3
6. A system for monitoring a condition of a rotorcraft, the
system located in the rotorcraft, the system comprising:
an engine sensor configured to determine engine torque
information of an engine of the rotorcraft;
an air data computer configured to determine position
and airspeed information of the rotorcraft;
a processing device configured to receive the engine
torque information, the position, and the airspeed information
associated with the rotorcraft,
the processing device configured to determine, based on
the received torque, position, and airspeed information, when
the rotorcraft is in a take-off condition or when the rotorcraft is
in a go-around condition;
the processing device configured to generate a first low-
speed alert when the rotorcraft is in the take-off condition or
when the rotorcraft is in the go-around condition, and if:
(a) airspeed is less than a predetermined speed by a
threshold amount and
(b) an acceleration value is between a first and
second acceleration value, the acceleration value being a
rate of change of the airspeed; and
an output device configured to present the first low-speed
alert to an operator of the rotorcraft.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Gehring US 4,774,515 Sept. 27, 1988
Pettigrew US 2006/0089761 A1 Apr. 27, 2006
Estabrook US 2008/0039988 A1 Feb. 14, 2008

Appeal 2018-008036
Application 13/585,276

4
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 3, 6–8, 11–13, 15, and 17–23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pettigrew and
Gehring. Final Act. 5–18.
II. Claims 4, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pettigrew, Gehring, and Estabrook. Id.
at 18–20.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a method that includes
determining engine torque, vehicle position, and airspeed information, and,
based thereon, (A) determining, as a threshold, “if operation intent of [the]
vehicle meets at least one predefined criterion . . . of a take-off or a go-
around condition,” and, if step (A) is met, then generating a first low-speed
alert if (B) “airspeed is less than a best rate-of-climb speed (Vbroc) by a
threshold amount” and (C) “an acceleration value based on the airspeed is
between a first acceleration value and a second acceleration value.” Appeal
Br., Claims App. The other independent claims include similar recitations,
specifically including initial threshold step (A) of determining when the
rotorcraft is in a take-off or a go-around condition. See id.
In rejecting the claims, for both Rejections I and II, the Examiner
relies on Pettigrew for disclosing this threshold determination step (A).
Final Act. 6 (citing Pettigrew ¶¶ 2, 5, 9, 21–23, 26, 37, 46–47; Figs. 1, 2, 4);
see also id. at 9, 12–13.
Appeal 2018-008036
Application 13/585,276

5
Appellant persuasively explains, however, that the Examiner’s
reliance on Pettigrew is misplaced in that Pettigrew neither discloses how an
aircraft would be determined as meeting a take-off or go-around condition,
nor explains why Pettigrew’s system would have any reason to disclose
making such a determination. See Appeal Br. 21–22 (specifically arguing
for independent claim 1).
Upon review of the evidence before us, we agree with Appellant that
the Examiner’s reliance on Pettigrew for disclosing the recited initial
threshold step (A) discussed above is not adequately supported by the cited
art. Thus, for the reasons presented by Appellant regarding this shortcoming
of Pettigrew, we agree that the cited art is lacking. See Appeal Br. 21–22
(arguments for claim 1), 27 (same arguments for claim 6), 28–29 (same
arguments for claim 11); Reply Br. 4–5.
Rejections based on obviousness must rest on a factual basis; in
making such a rejection, the Examiner has the initial burden of supplying the
requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is
patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. See In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Given the lack of disclosure in
Pettigrew regarding any determination of the aircraft meeting a take-off or
go-around condition, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
supplied an adequate factual basis that this reference teaches the initial
threshold step (A) of the claims.
The Examiner’s reliance on Gehring and Estabrook is for teaching
other features—specifically, Gehring is relied upon to teach subsequent
Appeal 2018-008036
Application 13/585,276

6
conditions (B) and (C)—but not in any way that would cure this
fundamental deficiency from Pettigrew. See Final Act. 7, 10, 13, 18‒20.
Accordingly, because the Examiner’s rejections are premised on
findings that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do
not sustain them.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6–8,
11–13, 15, and 17–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Pettigrew and Gehring.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 9, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pettigrew, Gehring, and
Estabrook.

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6–8,
11–13, 15,
17–23
103(a) Pettigrew, Gehring
1, 3, 6–8,
11–13,
15, 17–23
4, 9, 14 103(a) Pettigrew, Gehring, Estabrook 4, 9, 14
Overall
Outcome

1, 3, 4,
6–9,
11–15,
17–23

REVERSED