Ex Parte Bourret et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13400362 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
13/400,362 02/20/2012 Thierry Bourret ABUS-18A-116 2406
26875 7590 02/02/2017
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
SMALL, NAOMI J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THIERRY BOURRET, PASCALE LOUISE,
JEAN MULLER, and XAVIER DAL SANTO
Appeal 2016-001504
Application 13/400,362
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—17. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-001504
Application 13/400,362
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for aiding piloting of an airplane by ensuring
availability of an automatic pilot that is normally controlled as a
function of speed information of the airplane when the speed
information is lost, the method comprising:
detecting a loss of the speed information of the airplane;
and
in response to the detection of the loss of the speed
information of the airplane:
determining flight data of the airplane, the flight
data being independent from the speed information of the
airplane;
determining a plurality of control parameters from
the flight data; and
controlling the automatic pilot based on the control
parameters and without the speed information of the
airplane, wherein the automatic pilot comprises an
automatic piloting system or a flight director.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1,2, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Chesne (US 2008/0125923 Al; May 29, 2008).
Claims 3—12 and 15—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Chesne and various additional references.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Chesne does not disclose “controlling the
automatic pilot based on the control parameters and without the speed
information of the airplane” as required by independent claims 1 and 13. Br.
6. The Examiner finds Chesne discloses the use of a standby instrument in
2
Appeal 2016-001504
Application 13/400,362
the event that speed information is unavailable and “[t]he standby instrument
then supplies data to an automatic pilot for the control of the airplane.” Ans.
16 (citing Chesne 8, 33, 37).
Having reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments and the evidence of record, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in finding Chesne anticipates independent claims 1 and 13.
The Examiner is correct that Chesne discloses use of a standby instrument
when certain flight data, including speed information, becomes unavailable
(Ans. 16 (citing Chesne Tflf 33, 37)), but Chesne’s general statement that
“[t]he standby instrument can also send information externally, in particular
to the automatic pilot” (Chesne 1 8) does not disclose controlling the
automatic pilot based on such information in response to a loss of speed
information, as claimed.
To anticipate a claim, “it is not enough that the prior art reference . . .
includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an ordinary] artisan might
somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). While Chesne may
suggest that the automatic pilot can control an airplane based on parameters
from a backup instrument, Chesne does not disclose the claim limitations all
of the limitations of claims 1 and 13 arranged in the same way as in the
claims. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claims 1 and 13 nor dependent claims 2 and 14. The
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3—12 and 15—17 rely
upon the teachings of Chense to teach the disputed limitations of claims 1
and 13 and the Examiner has not shown that the additional references make
3
Appeal 2016-001504
Application 13/400,362
up for the deficiency in the anticipation rejection. Accordingly, we similarly
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—12 and 15—17.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-17.
REVERSED
4