Goodrich Lighting Systems GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 9, 2021

2020006740 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2021)

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.
14/825,917 08/13/2015 ANDRE HESSLING VON HEIMENDAHL 76841US01 8587
87521 7590 08/09/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
CARTER, WILLIAM JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte ANDRE HESSLING VON HEIMENDAHL,
FRANZ-JOSEF BEERMANN, CHRISTIAN SCHOEN,
SASCHA LUEDER, and ANIL KUMAR JHA

Appeal 2020-006740
Application 14/825,917
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application
14/825,917 filed Aug. 13, 2015 (“the ’917 App.”); the Final Office Action
dated Oct. 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 30, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated July 28, 2020 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed Sept. 28, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-006740
Application 14/825,917

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, and 14. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to aircraft beacon lights. Spec. ¶ 2.
According to Appellant, aircraft beacon lights generally are provided to alert
the ground personnel that the aircraft engines are running, and must be
turned on whenever the engines are on. Id. Aircraft beacon lights are also a
safety warning to other persons on the airfield, such as other pilots or drivers
of airport vehicles, indicating that the aircraft is operational and might move.
Id. Such lights are sometimes also referred to as anti-collision beacon lights.
Id. Aircraft beacon lights emit light in a red color and are entirely separated
from the white anti-collision lighting of the aircraft, whose light units are
commonly referred to merely as anti-collision lights. Id.
The Appellant states that in a prior art arrangement of beacon lights
on an aircraft, the aircraft is equipped with two beacon lights, one of which
is disposed on the top of the aircraft fuselage and one of which is placed on
the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. Spec. ¶ 3. The top beacon light is placed
at a position along the length of the aircraft fuselage where the wings have
their roots, and emits lights in a 360° angle. Id. The bottom beacon light is

2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Goodrich Lighting Systems GMBH as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-006740
Application 14/825,917

3
placed on the bottom of the aircraft fuselage at its tail, and emits light in a
360° angle. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claim Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An aircraft comprising:
a set of aircraft beacon light units, wherein each of the set
of aircraft beacon light units has
an operating light emission distribution that has a
first light emission opening angle of at least 150° in a first cross-
sectional plane, and
a second light emission opening angle of at most
180° in a second cross-sectional plane orthogonal to the first
cross-sectional plane,
wherein each of the set of aircraft beacon light units is
mounted to the aircraft with the first cross-sectional plane being
oriented in a vertical direction and the second cross-sectional
plane being oriented in a horizontal direction,
wherein the first light emission opening angle of each of
the set of aircraft beacon light units extends at least 75° both
above and below the second cross-sectional plane,
wherein the second light emission opening angles of the
set of aircraft beacon light units add up to at least 360°, such that
a 360° illumination in the horizontal plane of the aircraft is
possible via the set of aircraft beacon light units,
wherein each of the set of aircraft beacon light units is
configured to emit flashes of aviation red light, and
wherein the set of aircraft beacon light units comprises:
a right wing tip aircraft beacon light unit and a left
wing tip aircraft beacon light unit, with the second light emission
opening angle of each of the right wing tip aircraft beacon light
unit and the left wing tip aircraft beacon light unit being between
90° and 140°, and
Appeal 2020-006740
Application 14/825,917

4
at least one tail aircraft beacon light unit, with a total
second light emission opening angle of the at least one tail
aircraft beacon light unit being between 100° and 180°,
wherein each of the right wing tip aircraft beacon light
unit, the left wing tip aircraft beacon light unit, and the at least
one tail aircraft beacon light unit is a combined aircraft beacon
light and anti-collision light unit, configured to emit flashes of
aviation red light and configured to emit flashes of white light.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Calvin et al.
(“Calvin”)
US 2011/0122635 A1 May 26, 2011
Peck US 2014/0185280 A1 July 3, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Calvin in view of Peck. Final Act. 3–6.
OPINION
Appellant only argues the patentability of claim 1, making no separate
argument for patentability of claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13, and 14. Appeal Br. 3–
11. Therefore, we limit our analysis to claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner interprets “beacon” as a warning light, and finds that
Calvin explicitly teaches a warning light. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that
“beacon” does not require color, location, structure, or flashing. Id. The
Examiner finds that Calvin teaches the aircraft beacon light units of claim 1
with the exception of “wherein a red light is aviation red and having at least
one red light source for emitting flashes of white light.” Final Act. 4. The
Appeal 2020-006740
Application 14/825,917

5
Examiner relies on Peck as teaching aircraft beacon light units that emit
flashes of aviation red light. Id. The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have used the red light of Peck in Calvin’s beacon/strobe light
in order to provide a light output appropriate for nighttime use. Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the red flashing beacon light system
of an aircraft is separate from the other lighting systems of the aircraft.
Appeal Br. 4. More specifically, Appellant argues that the red flashing
beacon light system is separate from the green, red, and white position lights
providing continuous illumination, and separate from white anti-collision
strobe lights. Id. According to Appellant, Calvin fails to teach red flashing
lights, red strobe lights, or beacon lights in any way. Id. Appellant argues
that Calvin concerns colored (green and red) navigation lights, white
position lights, and white strobe lights. Id. at 3.
The outcome here depends on the construction of “beacon” in the
claimed phrase “aircraft beacon light.” The Examiner relies on a dictionary
meaning of “beacon,” citing to the Cambridge Dictionary, which defines
“beacon” as “a light that acts as a signal or warning.” Ans. 4. Appellant, in
contrast, argues that “beacon light” has a well-defined meaning in the field
of aircraft lighting, and cites to the ’917 Application and an evidentiary
reference (Machi3) submitted during prosecution and in the Evidence
Appendix to the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 2–3.

3 Appellant submitted US 7,645,053 B2 issued Jan. 12, 2010 to Machi et al.
(“Machi”), with the June 6, 2018 Amendment and Response to Office
Action.
Appeal 2020-006740
Application 14/825,917

6
“It is a well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee is free to
be his or her own lexicographer, and thus may use terms in a manner
contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings.”
Hormone Res. Found., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (internal citation omitted). While Appellant is free to redefine
terms in the Specification, any such novel definitions must be clearly
indicated. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (“[W]ords in a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning, [but] a patentee may choose to be his own
lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning,
as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent
specification or file history.”). “[A] claim term may be clearly redefined
without an explicit statement of redefinition” and “[e]ven when guidance is
not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define
claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or
ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1320–21 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Here, the Specification states
Aircraft beacon lights are in general provided for alerting the
ground personnel that the aircraft engines are running and have
to be turned on whenever the engines are on. They are also a
safety warning to other persons on the airfield, indicating that
the aircraft is operational and might move. For example, other
pilots or drivers of all kinds of airport vehicles can determine if
an aircraft is ready to move and if its movement may cause
collisions on the airfield. For this reason, beacon lights are
sometimes also referred to as anti-collision beacon lights. They
emit light in a red color and are entirely separated from the
white anti-collision lighting of the aircraft, whose light units are
commonly referred to merely as anti-collision lights.
Appeal 2020-006740
Application 14/825,917

7
Spec. ¶ 2. Therefore, Appellant provides a special definition for “aircraft
beacon lights,” distinguishing them as emitting red light and not being white
anti-collision lights.
The Examiner finds that “warning,” “beacon,” and “anti-collision”
can be used interchangeably to refer to red fuselage-mounted lights and
white wingtip and tail lights. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that “‘beacon’
simply requires a light that acts as a warning,” and that it is reasonable to
interpret the warning lights of Calvin as beacons. Id. at 4.
We disagree. “Aircraft beacon lights” has a specific meaning in claim
1, as set forth in the foregoing quote from the Specification. Spec. ¶ 2.
Therefore, the Examiner’s conflation of “beacon” with Calvin’s disclosure
of warning lights is improper. The Examiner relies on Calvin’s disclosure of
warning lights as teaching the aircraft beacon lights of claim 1. However,
the aircraft beacon lights of claim 1 do not read on Calvin’s strobe lights,
position lights, or colored navigation lights. See Calvin ¶ 6.
In addition, we agree with Appellant that Peck does not concern
external aircraft lighting. See Appeal Br. 7. Peck discloses an obstruction
lighting system for an elevated structure, such as a tower. Peck Abstr. ¶ 1.
Peck is not “drawn to aircraft beacon lights,” as the Examiner finds
incorrectly. See Final Act. 4.
Appellant shows reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that
claim 1 is obvious over Calvin in view of Peck. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13, 14.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
More specifically,
Appeal 2020-006740
Application 14/825,917

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9, 10,
13, 14
103 Calvin, Peck 1–7, 9, 10,
13, 14
REVERSED