Goodrich Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2020

14682785 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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.
14/682,785 04/09/2015 Ian P. Humphrey 1510801.382US1 7974
61654 7590 10/22/2020
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
HAN, CHARLES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2020 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):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte IAN P. HUMPHREY
____________

Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final
rejection of claims 1–6, 8, 10–13, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Goodrich Corporation as the
Applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to imaging systems for use in a flight
control system. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A sensor system, comprising:
a first sensor assembly;
a second sensor assembly with substantially redundant
sensor capabilities with the first sensor assembly;
a flight control system of an aircraft operatively connected
to the first and second sensor assemblies individually; and
a processor having a memory operatively connected to the
first and second sensor assemblies, wherein the memory
includes instructions recorded thereon that, when read by the
processor, cause the processor to detect objects in front of the
aircraft,
wherein each of the first and second sensor assemblies
include independent polarization channels, wherein the memory
includes instructions recorded thereon that, when read by the
processor, cause the processor to indicate material of an object
or surface detected by the first and second sensors based on
polarization detected with the respective polarization channels.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Factor US 2010/0253567 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
Kushleyev IEEE, Planning for Landing
Site Selection in the Aerial
Supply Delivery
Sept. 25, 2011
Justice US 2011/0285981 A1 Nov. 24, 2011
Ingram US 2012/0035884 A1 Feb. 9, 2012
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
3
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Justice, Kushleyev, and Ingram.
2. Claims 3, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Justice, Kushleyev, Ingram, and Factor.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 15
over Justice, Kushleyev, and Ingram
For all practical purposes, Appellant argues these claims as a group.
Appeal Br. 10–12. Claim 1 is representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Justice discloses the invention substantially
as claimed. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Kushleyev as disclosing
a flight control system operatively connected to control first and second
sensor assemblies. Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Justice by the teachings of Kushleyev. Id. According to
the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
perform 3D localization and mapping. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner further
relies on Ingram as disclosing polarization channels as claimed. Id. at 6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate
polarization data collection and analysis into Justice. Id. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
improve the detection and identification of objects. Id. at 6–7.
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s findings of fact with
respect to either the Justice or the Kushleyev references. Appeal Br. 10–12.
Justice and Kushleyev demonstrate that it was known, in the prior art, to use
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
4
LIDAR technology to map and analyze potential landing sites for unmanned
aerial vehicles. Justice, Abstract; Kushleyev, p. 1, col. 1; p. 7, col. 2.
Nevertheless, Appellant argues that Ingram fails to disclose
independent polarization channels as claimed. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant
argues that Ingram merely teaches polarimetric sensors that include filter
reflected light at various polarization angles (0o, 45o, 90o, and 135o). Id.
(citing Ingram ¶ 140). Appellant argues that Ingram’s filters would not
avoid cross-talk between the two sensors. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that Appellant’s position fails to
patentably distinguish between what it refers to as polarization “channels”
compared to Ingram’s polarization “filters.” Ans. 5–7. With respect to
Appellant’s expressed concerns about “cross-talk,” the Examiner notes that
there is no limitation in either independent claim 1 or independent claim 10
directed to avoiding “cross-talk.” Id. at 8.
In reply, Appellant proposes the following as an operational definition
of the term – “independent polarization channels:”
Therefore the logical interpretation for what ‘independent
polarization channels’ means (as would be easily deduced by
one skilled in the art having the benefit of applicant's
disclosure) is: each sensor has a different polarization so that
the two LIDARS will not cross-talk when their fields of view
overlap.
Reply Br. 10 (emphasis added).
The dispute between Appellant and the Examiner is largely a matter
of claim construction. During examination of a patent application, pending
claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
5
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the
applicant, because Appellant has the opportunity to amend the claims to
obtain more precise claim coverage. Am. Acad. of Sci., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Here, Appellant provides no explanation as to why it waited until the
Reply Brief to propose, for the first time, an interpretation of the disputed
claim language. By waiting until the Reply Brief, Appellant has effectively
deprived the Examiner of a fair opportunity to respond. We apply the
principle of waiver to Appellant’s belatedly advanced argument. Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Any bases for
asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal
brief are waived”).
Nevertheless, even if were to consider Appellant’s proposed
construction, we are not inclined to adopt it. As correctly expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer, there is no limitation in the claims directed to
“cross-talk.” Ans. 8. We are unable to find any teaching regarding avoiding
cross-talk in Appellant’s disclosure. See generally Spec. In our view,
Appellant seeks to import a “cross-talk” limitation into the claims by
incorporating it into a proposed definition of independent polarization
channels. Reply Br. 10. There is no basis for such an artificially narrow
construction in Appellant’s disclosure.
The term “polarization channel” appears once in the Specification and
twice more in original claim 9. Spec. pp. 6, 7. It appears in the following
context:
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
6
each of the sensor assemblies 102, 112 can have polarization
channels independent of each other to distinguish between
natural material and manmade material when viewing an object
or surface.
Id. at 6.
each of the first and second sensor assemblies can include
polarization channels, wherein the memory includes
instructions recorded thereon that, when ready by the processor,
cause the processor to:
indicate material of an object or surface detected by the first
and second sensors based on polarization detected with the
respective polarization channels.
Id. at 9 (original claim 9). Appellant’s disclosure also includes two figures.
Figure 1 is a generic illustration of a helicopter and two sensor assemblies.
Fig. 1. Figure 2 is a simple, block diagram schematic depicting lines of
connection between two sensors, a controller, a processor, and memory.
Fig. 2.
Appellant’s use of the plural form of both “assemblies” and
“channels” is problematic. The claim language admits of at least two
possibilities: (1) each sensor assembly has a plurality of channels; and (2)
each of a plurality of assemblies could have only one channel. In other
words, under possibility (2), there are a plurality of channels in the overall
system simply because there is more than one sensor assembly. There is
certainly nothing in Figure 2 to suggest that there is more than one “channel”
leading away from each of the first and second sensors. Fig. 2. Thus,
although either possibility may, to a lessor or greater extent, be
“reasonable,” we view the latter as the broadest reasonable construction.
Am. Acad. of Sci., 367 F.3d at 1364. Thus, a sensor system that includes a
first and a second sensor, each of which has a polarization channel leading
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
7
therefrom, will satisfy the claim language that “the first and second
assemblies include” – “polarization channels.” Claims App.
We next turn to what the word “channel” and, more particularly,
“polarization channel” means in the context of Appellant’s disclosure.
Appellant’s invention transmits sensor signal data, which is a form of
telecommunication data, from sensors to a controller, processor and
memory. Fig. 2. The ordinary and customary meaning of “channel” in the
telecommunications field merely refers to a pathway for communicating
electronic data. Here, the word channel is modified by the adjective
“polarization.” Claims App. The context of Appellant’s disclosure is
receiving and analyzing polarized light to evaluate potential landing surfaces
for an unmanned aerial vehicle. Spec. p. 1, l. 19; p. 2, l. 18; p. 6, l. 3. Thus,
electronic data that is transmitted from the sensors to the processor is data
that represents polarized light signals.
The first and second sensor assemblies can include polarization
sensors wherein the memory, when ready by the processor,
cause the processor to indicate material of an object or surface
detected by the first and second sensors based on polarization
detected with respective polarization sensors.
Id. p. 2, ll. 18–21. A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading
Appellant’s disclosure, would thus understand a “polarization channel” as a
data communications pathway that carries data relating to polarized light
signals.
The foregoing still requires us to construe how the word
“independent” affects the scope of the claim. Appellant’s Specification
teaches that:
[E]ach of the sensor assemblies 102, 112 can have polarization
channels independent of each other to distinguish between
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
8
natural material and manmade material when viewing an object
or surface.
Spec. p. 6, ll. 13–15. In other words, the channel for a first sensor is
independent of (i.e., not dependent upon) the channel for a second sensor.
We live in a day and age of advanced telecommunications technology.
Electronic data may be communicated over a wired connection (copper wire,
fiber optic cable, etc.) or wirelessly (radio telecommunications, Wi-Fi,
Bluetooth, etc.). A telecommunications practitioner has a wide variety of
tools and techniques at his or her disposal to transmit a first signal and a
second signal within a two signal channel system in such a manner that the
data from channel one does not degrade, interfere, or otherwise corrupt the
data from channel two. A lengthy discussion on the matter is not required
here, but suffice it to say that any of using two separate, properly shielded
physical wires, various well-known techniques of modulation/demodulation,
transmission through the air over two different frequencies, transmitting
through the air over a single frequency using well-known multiplexing
technology, could be readily employed such that the communication channel
for signal one may be considered “independent” of the communication
channel for signal two. In our opinion, the word “independent” in claim 1
does not require anything more than using well-known telecommunication
techniques to ensure that signal one and signal two are not dependent on one
another and/or do not otherwise interfere with or corrupt each other.
Ingram is directed to acquiring multi-angle imagery of portions of the
earth’s surface. Ingram ¶ 29. The Figure 1B embodiment of Ingram uses a
plurality of active sensors (102, 104) that both: (1) illuminate a scene with
LIDAR radiation; and (2) measure the reflectance of such radiation. Id.
Sensors 102, 104 are carried on aircraft. Id. ¶ 30. Use of a plurality of
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
9
sensors facilitates data acquisition at different angles. Id. ¶ 31. Ingram
generates imagery from radiation reflecting off of a physical target that is
sensed by polarimetric sensors. Id. ¶ 41. The sensors typically includes four
polarization filters oriented at 0, 45, 90, and 135 degrees respectively. Id. A
person of ordinary skill in the art, having read Ingram, would reasonably
conclude that Ingram gathers LIDAR data from a plurality of sensors (¶ 29),
that the data reflects polarized light signals (¶ 140), that such data is
transmitted to an image processing facility (¶ 30), and that the data channel
for the first sensor is independent of (or not dependent upon) the data
channel for the second sensor.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 15.
Unpatentability of Claims 3, 6, 11, and 12
over Justice, Kushleyev, Ingram, and Factor
Claims 3 and 6 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims
App. Claims 11 and 12 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 10. Id.
These claims are not separately argued except for restating the same
arguments that we found unpersuasive with respect to claims 1 and 10 and
find equally unpersuasive here. Appeal Br. 12. We sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 6, 11, and 12.
Appeal 2020-001861
Application 14/682,785
10

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
§ References Affirmed Rev’d
1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
10, 13, 15
103 Justice, Kushleyev, Ingram 1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
10, 13, 15

3, 6, 11, 12 103 Justice, Kushleyev, Ingram,
Factor
3, 6, 11, 12
Overall
Outcome
1-6, 8, 10-13,
15

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED