Ex Parte Conner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201712186386 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation