L3 Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2021

2021000290 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 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.
15/719,189 09/28/2017 Michael E. Weed 78058.00187 5730
35161 7590 06/28/2021
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC - WASHINGTON, DC
1825 EYE ST., NW
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2021 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):
dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL E. WEED and WILLIAM N. WAGGENER
____________

Appeal 2021-000290
Application 15/719,189
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–19, which are the pending
claims. 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. Appellant identifies L3 Technologies, Inc., as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000290
Application 15/719,189

2
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
determining a current position of a vehicle;
comparing the current position of the vehicle to a
position-reporting mask;
determining a frequency of reporting the position of the
vehicle based on the comparison to the mask; and
reporting the position of the vehicle at the determined
frequency.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).

REJECTION
Claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Baker (US 2013/0297103 A1, published Nov. 7,
2013) and Gong (US 2018/0068567 A1, published Mar. 8, 2018).

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Baker discloses
“determin[ing] a current position of a vehicle” (citing Baker ¶¶ 31–39),
“determining a frequency of reporting the position of the vehicle based on
bandwidth resources” (citing Baker ¶ 33), and “reporting the position of the
vehicle at the determined frequency” (citing Baker ¶ 44). Final Act. 3–4
(emphasis added). The Examiner also finds that Baker teaches or suggests
that “the transmission frequency protocol may be based on the current
location of a vehicle.” Advisory Act. (dated March 5, 2020) (citing Baker
¶¶ 33, 44). The Examiner concedes that Baker does not disclose “comparing
a position to a reporting mask.” Final Act. 4. To address this omission, the
Appeal 2021-000290
Application 15/719,189

3
Examiner relies on Gong as teaching “an unmanned aerial vehicle
authentication system that compares the current position of the vehicle to a
position-reporting mask . . . where the restricted area corresponds to the
reporting mask)” and “report[ing] the position of the vehicle conditionally
based on the comparison to the mask.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Gong ¶¶ 725–34)
(bold face omitted, emphasis added). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these
teachings of Gong with Baker “to improve flight safety.” Id. at 5 (citing
Gong ¶ 5).
Appellant contends that neither Baker nor Gong teaches or suggests
“determining a frequency of reporting the position of the vehicle based on
[‘comparing the current position of the vehicle to a position-reporting
mask’].” Appeal Br. 6 (bold face omitted). First, Appellant contends that
paragraph 33 of Baker discloses that “the frequency of transmission of the
flight positioning information is based on characteristics, such as altitude,
airspeed, turn rate, and proximity to a destination, which are associated with,
but not the same as the position of the aircraft.” Id. at 7. Appellant further
contends that these characteristics instead “determine the likelihood of
whether the track of the aircraft will change” and “are used to determine the
frequency of transmission of the flight positioning information,” where
“more frequent transmission of this information is desired at times when the
track of the aircraft is more likely to change.” Id. Second, Appellant
contends that paragraph 44 of Baker describes that “the frequency of
transmission of the flight positioning information may be based on the
‘state’ of the aircraft, such as whether it is in a ‘cruising’ state or a ‘holding
pattern’ state.” Id. at 8. Appellant submits that a “state” may be associated
Appeal 2021-000290
Application 15/719,189

4
with, but is not the same as, the aircraft position. Id. Third, Appellant
contends that Baker does not mention a mask. Id.
Fourth, Appellant contends that Gong fails to remedy the deficiencies
of Baker. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant asserts that Gong describes that flight
regulations may include restrictions on operations of an unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) that may be applied within geo-fencing boundaries, and may
include restrictions on: transmitting data from sensors, wireless signals, and
communications. Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing Gong ¶ 725).
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. The Examiner correctly
points out that Baker discloses the use of Global positioning satellites
operating in conjunction with the global positioning system (GPS) to
provide signals that are used in determining an accurate position of aircraft
by their on-board GPS receivers. Ans. 3 (citing Baker ¶ 31). Baker also
discloses determining the frequency of reporting “updated flight positioning
information.” See Baker ¶ 33. This can be “determined based upon at least
one characteristic of the flight associated with the positional information,”
such as the aircraft’s altitude and “proximity to its destination.” Id.
According to Appellant:
the altitude of an aircraft is related to its position, but is not,
itself, a position – an aircraft at a given altitude (or airspeed,
turn rate, or proximity to destination) may be at any one of a
multitude of positions. None of the altitude, airspeed, turn rate,
and proximity to a destination is itself a position or, even
together, determines a position of an aircraft.
Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). However, this assertion overlooks the fact
that Baker discloses determining “an accurate position of aircraft.” See
Baker ¶ 31. A skilled artisan could readily use this positional information to
determine, for example, the aircraft’s proximity to its destination, which
Appeal 2021-000290
Application 15/719,189

5
would have a known location. We note claim 1 does not recite that the
“vehicle” is an aircraft, or that the vehicle is airborne. Baker discloses that
“when a flight is . . . waiting at a gate, the need for more frequent positional
updates is reduced, as its path is either static or at least much more
predictable.” Baker ¶ 33 (emphasis added). One skilled in the art would
understand that the gate’s location at an airport or other facility would be
known. Baker teaches that the rate of positional updates can be based on the
aircraft being at such location (i.e., a “characteristic of the flight”). Id.
Accordingly, this example supports the Examiner’s position that Baker
discloses that “the transmission frequency protocol may be based on the
current location of a vehicle.” See Advisory Act.
Appellant’s contention that a “state” as disclosed in Baker is not the
same as the aircraft position (Appeal Br. 8) also overlooks that Baker
discloses determining “an accurate position of aircraft.” See Baker ¶ 31.
Moreover, Baker discloses that the “state” may correspond to a “flight
characteristic,” as discussed above. See Baker ¶ 44 (“the ‘Cruising” state”).
As for the claimed “position-reporting mask,” Appellant does not
argue that a “mask” has a particular meaning. In light of the Specification, it
appears that a “mask” can correspond to a place where data transmission
(reporting) from a vehicle can be suppressed (“reporting should not be done,
or should be done less frequently”). See Spec. ¶¶ 16, 18. As explained by
the Examiner, the rejection does not rely on Baker for teaching the recited
position reporting mask; rather, Gong’s teaching of not permitting wireless
communications in a restricted area correlates to the recited position
reporting mask. Ans. 4. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding
that a “restricted area” as disclosed in Gong is a “reporting mask,” as
Appeal 2021-000290
Application 15/719,189

6
claimed, or that Gong discloses “report[ing] the position of the vehicle
conditionally based on the comparison to the mask.” Final Act. 4–5.
There is no requirement that Baker or Gong, individually, teaches
“determining a frequency of reporting the position of the vehicle based on
[‘comparing the current position of the vehicle to a position-reporting
mask’].” Appeal Br. 6. An Examiner is not required to “seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Rather, in an
obviousness analysis, an Examiner can consider not only the express
disclosures of the references, but also the “inferences and creative steps that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. Here, the rejection
is based on a combination of teachings, and, consequently, attacking Baker
and Gong individually is unpersuasive because it fails to address what the
collective information demonstrates a skilled artisan would have known, and
how that collective knowledge would have influenced the steps taken by
such an artisan. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Furthermore, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s stated rationale for combining the teachings of Gong regarding a
“mask” with those of Baker to result in the method as recited in claim 1.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over Baker and Gong. Appellant contends that independent claims 9 and 17
are patentable for reasons analogous to those argued for claim 1, and that
claims 2–5, 7, 8, 10–13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are patentable based on
depending from claim 1, 9, or 17. Appeal Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 2–5, 7–13, and 15–19 for the same reasons as for
claim 1.
Appeal 2021-000290
Application 15/719,189

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–13,
15–19
103 Baker, Gong 1–5, 7–13,
15–19

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

AFFIRMED