SUNLIGHT AEROSPACE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2020

15785104 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
15/785,104 10/16/2017 Sergey V. FROLOV SP036 5104
54698 7590 06/26/2020
MOSER TABOADA
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
LAFONTANT, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2020 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SERGEY V. FROLOV and MICHAEL CYRUS

Appeal 2019-005283
Application 15/785,104
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1–8 and 10–28, which constitute
all of the claims pending in this appeal.2 Appeal Br. 1. Claim 9 has been
cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We refer to the Specifications, filed Oct. 16, 2017 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Aug. 15, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Jan. 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 1, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed July 1, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Sunlight Photonics Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005283
Application 15/785,104

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to airborne
communication system (1110) for providing extended wireless
communication to user (1125) by positioning its airborne platform at an
altitude, which permits the airborne platform to establish an unobstructed
line of sight (LOS) with wireless networks (1120, 1130). Spec. ¶¶ 48, 55,
and Fig. 11. In particular, communication system (1110) uses its flight
controller to elevate its airborne platform to an altitude or position that
enables the platform to establish an optimal signal strength or coverage area
for first or second wireless link (1120, 1130) with ground devices. Id.
Figure 11, discussed above and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 11 illustrates airborne communication system (1110) providing local
wireless network (1120) for users (1125) using wireless link (1130) to cell
tower (1135).
Appeal 2019-005283
Application 15/785,104

3
Spec. ¶ 48.

Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 26, and 28 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for providing extended wireless communications,
comprising:
providing an airborne platform having a communication
payload able to establish at least a first and a second wireless
link, and a flight control system able to alter at least one of a
position or an attitude of the airborne platform;
elevating the airborne platform using the flight control
system to an altitude at which wireless connectivity is able to be
established with a first wireless network;
establishing a first wireless link to the first wireless
network using the communication payload of the airborne
platform;
establishing a second wireless link using the
communication payload of the airborne platform;
relaying data between the first wireless link and the
second wireless link using the communication payload; and
altering at least one of the position or the attitude (sic) of
the airborne platform using the flight control system to locate a
position or an attitude (sic) for the airborne platform having at
least one of an optimum signal strength or coverage area for at
least one of the first and the second wireless links.

Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).

III. REFERENCES RELIED UPON
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005283
Application 15/785,104

4

Name Number Publ’d/Issued
Dent US 7,010,290 B2 Mar. 7, 2006
McGuffin US 2006/0217851 A1 Sept. 28, 2006
Knoblack US 2008/0299990 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Self US 9,334,627 B2 May 10, 2016

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 and 5–20 as follows:
1. Claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–19, and 22–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Knoblach and
McGuffin. Final Act. 3–16.
2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Knoblach, McGuffin, and Self. Final Act.
16–17.
3. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Knoblach, McGuffin, and George. Final Act.
17–18.
4. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Knoblach, McGuffin, and Dent. Final Act.
19–20.
V. ANALYSIS
Appeal 2019-005283
Application 15/785,104

5
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7–22 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–15.4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 3–30; see also Ans. 4–12. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues the combination
of Knoblach and McGuffin does not teach or suggest altering a position or
altitude of an airborne platform to locate a position or altitude thereof
having an optimal signal strength or coverage area of a first or second
wireless link. Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant argues Knoblach’s
disclosure of altering the position or altitude of an airborne platform is not
taught in connection with locating the optimum signal strength or coverage
of a wireless network associated with the platform. Id. at 11–12 (citing
Knoblach ¶¶ 95–98). Further, Appellant argues McGuffin’s disclosure of an
air-ground station for measuring the signal strength of a ground station to
maintain communication therewith or to select another ground station where
the signal strength is above a threshold value does not cure the admitted
deficiencies of Knoblach. Id. at 8 (citing McGuffin ¶ 18). In particular,
Appellant argues McGuffin’s teaching of selecting a suitable ground station
based upon its signal strength to maintain communication between the air

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012).
Appeal 2019-005283
Application 15/785,104

6
and ground stations relates to hand-over points between the stations, as
opposed to altering the position or altitude of a platform to obtain an optimal
signal strength for a first or second wireless link. Id. at 9, 10. Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As a preliminary matter, we note the disputed claim limitation
requires locating either the position or altitude of an airborne platform
having either an optimal signal strength or coverage area of a wireless link.
Reply Br. 3. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Knoblach discloses an
airborne communication platform carrying a payload of electronic
communication and control equipment including an altitude regulator for
altering the altitude of the platform from 60,000 to 140,000 feet. Ans. 5
(citing Knoblach ¶¶ 52, 65, 66, 164, and 165). Knoblach indicates that the
disclosed teaching is intended “to provide substantially 100% coverage” and
can be combined with existing high density wireless carrier networks to
provide extended communication coverage by maintaining a line of sight
communication between airborne platforms and ground terminals. See
Knoblach ¶¶ 62, 64, 131, 134, and 135 (emphasis added). On this record,
Knoblach therefore teaches an altitude regulator for altering the altitude of
an airborne platform to provide 100 percent wireless communication
coverage between the airborne platform and ground devices. As further
correctly noted by the Examiner, McGuffin discloses, as the altitude of an
airborne platform is changing, a wireless connection with an optimal signal
strength between the airborne platform and a ground terminal is determined.
Ans. 5–6 (citing McGuffin ¶ 18). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that the proposed combination of Knoblack and McGuffin teaches or
suggests, as an altitude regulator is used to vary the altitude of an airborne
Appeal 2019-005283
Application 15/785,104

7
platform from “60,000 to 140,000 feet,” determining “[a wireless network
with] an optimum signal strength or coverage” for effective wireless
communication between the airborne platform and ground devices. Id. at 5;
see also Reply Br. 10–11. Although both Knoblach and McGuffin teach
selecting optimum signal strength or coverage as part of a handoff operation
between wireless networks, the disputed claim limitation does not preclude
such selection nor does it limit the selection of the optimal performance to
be associated with a particular operation. Because the proposed combination
of references teaches or suggests using an optimal signal strength or
coverage as a way to extend communication between the airborne platform
and ground device, we are satisfied that, on the record before us, the
Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combination of Knoblack and McGuffin renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2–8 and 10–28, Appellant has not
presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the
same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claim
1. As such, claims 2–8 and 10–28 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

VI. DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1–8 and 10–28.
Appeal 2019-005283
Application 15/785,104

8
VII. CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–8, 10–19, 22–
28 103
Knoblach,
McGuffin
1–4, 6–8, 10–
19, 22–28
5 103 Knoblach, McGuffin, Self 5
20 103 Knoblach, McGuffin, George 20
21 103 Knoblach, McGuffin, Dent 21
Overall Outcome 1–8, 10–28

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED