Ex Parte Conner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12186386 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
12/186,386 08/05/2008 Kevin J Conner H0018934 (002.2760) 1081
89955 7590 04/04/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
TISSOT, ADAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN J. CONNER, YASUO ISHIHARA, and
C. DON BATEMAN
Appeal 2015-002088
Application 12/186,386
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kevin J. Conner et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 10—
20 as unpatentable over Staggs (US 2004/0044446 Al; pub. Mar. 4, 2004)
and Johnson (US 2002/0040263 Al; pub. Apr. 4, 2002). Claims 1—9 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-002088
Application 12/186,386
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to systems “for generating an alert
to the pilot of an aircraft during a deep/long landing situation.” Spec. 12,
Figs. 2, 3. Claims 10 and 15 are independent.
Claim 10 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
10. A system for generating an alert to the pilot of an aircraft
during a deep landing situation, the system comprising:
a database comprising runway information;
a position sensor configured to produce aircraft position
information;
a processor in data communication with the database and
the position sensor,
the processor comprising:
an advisory condition detection component
configured to compare altitude of the aircraft to a
predefined altitude limit, determine if the aircraft is
beyond an airline defined landing zone limit and not
on the ground, and generate an alert to the pilot, if
the aircraft is below the predefined altitude limit,
beyond the airline defined landing zone limit and
not on the ground; and
an output device configured to output the generated alert.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Staggs discloses the limitations of claim 10
substantially as claimed except “Staggs does not explicitly teach comparing
aircraft altitude to an altitude limit.” See Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner
finds that “Johnson discloses comparing altitude of the aircraft to a
predefined altitude limit (see Fig. 4A, #109 and para. 0020).” Id. at 7. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify Staggs to
include an altitude comparison [as taught by Johnson] to improve an
aircraft’s approach and landing accuracy . . . comparing a threshold altitude
2
Appeal 2015-002088
Application 12/186,386
to the aircraft’s altitude is directly related to improving accuracy of the
landing approach[].” Id. (citing Johnson, || 2, 15—17); see also id. at 3. The
Examiner further concludes that “comparison between the altitudes” as
taught by Johnson “is performed so that missing the runway (and subsequent
potential death) is avoided. Consequently, accuracy during landing is
improved.” Ans. 4 (citing Johnson, || 15—17, 20).
Appellants contend that “[t]he [EJxaminer has not set forth any
evidentiary basis, let alone a detailed evidentiary basis, for any teaching,
suggestion or motivation to combine Staggs and Johnson.” See Appeal Br.
11; see also Reply Br. 5—6. According to Appellants, modifying the system
of Staggs “to include the additional functionality of comparing the altitude
of the aircraft to a predefined altitude” as taught by Johnson is “wholly
unnecessary” because (1) “the system of Staggs is agnostic to aircraft
altitude. Staggs’ system is concerned with determining the correspondence
of the Intended Touchdown Point (ITP) and the Current Touchdown Point
(CTP) as soon as possible, regardless of aircraft altitude”; and (2) “the
system disclosed in Staggs . . . already ensures that ‘missing the runway’ is
avoided.” See Reply Br. 4—6; see also Appeal Br. 11. Thus, Appellants
conclude that the Examiner’s “proffered motivation is merely conclusory.”
See id.; see also Appeal Br. 11.
Staggs discloses that
by contrast to the prior art estimate . . . The present
invention compares [the] more accurately estimated CTP
[Current Touchdown Point] to the Intended Touchdown Point
[ITP] and informs the pilot of dangerous trends away from the
ITP so that the pilot can correct for them, thereby avoiding a
mishap.
3
Appeal 2015-002088
Application 12/186,386
In the practice of the present invention, a pilot selects a
point on the runway and flies the approach so as to land at the
Intended Touchdown Point ITP. Under VFR [Visual Flight
Rules] operations, the ITP is completely at the pilot’s discretion,
but.. . the ITP must be located such so as to allow a safe landing
and stop in the available runway distance.
Staggs, 100, 101 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1 60 (“Under Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) operations, selection of the Intended Touchdown Point
[ITP] is at the pilot’s discretion, and is limited only to the extent that it must
be located such as to permit the aircraft to land safely and come to a
complete stop within the remaining runway length(emphasis added)).
Based on Staggs’ disclosure, we agree with Appellants that Staggs
“already ensures that ‘missing the runway’ is avoided.” See Reply Br. 5—6.
Moreover, we note that Staggs discloses that the Wide Area Augmentation
System (WAAS) receiver “provides highly accurate altitude information
and other GPS signal corrections” and with the WAAS, “the aircraft’s static
altimeter [altitude instrument] inputs are unnecessary, and the corresponding
inaccuracies are eliminated.” Staggs, H 54, 86 (emphasis added). Given
that Staggs discloses that the WAAS receiver provides highly accurate
altitude, thereby making inputs from the aircraft’s static altimeter (altitude
instrument) unnecessary, we fail to see how modifying Staggs’ device with
the altitude comparison of Johnson would “improve [the] aircraft’s approach
and landing accuracy.” See Final Act. 3,7; see also Ans. 4.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a system for alerting a pilot of an
aircraft during a deep landing situation including language similar to that of
claim 10. See Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same
unsupported findings and conclusions discussed above with respect to
4
Appeal 2015-002088
Application 12/186,386
independent claim 10. See Final Act. 6—7. Thus, the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions for claim 15 are deficient as well.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-20 as unpatentable over Staggs and
Johnson.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10—20 as
unpatentable over Staggs and Johnson.
REVERSED
5