Ex Parte Cooper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

12030553 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/030,553 02/13/2008
63759 7590 04/29/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Leonard Cooper
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
07-1121-US-NP 1915
EXAMINER
SHERR, MARIA CRISTI OWEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK LEONARD COOPER and
STEPHEN SOLOMON ALTUS
Appeal2014-001981
Application 12/030,553
Technology Center 3600
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1--4, 17-23, and 25-30. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-001981
Application 12/030,553
Appellants' invention is directed to minimizing aircraft emissions
(Spec. para. 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for performing flight planning to reduce an effect
of emissions, the method comprising:
calculating by a processor a set of emissions data for an
aircraft for a plurality of route segments in a route as a function
of parameters for a flight plan including the route, a weight, an
altitude, and engine data;
generating a flight plan for the aircraft taking into account
a total of each type of emission for the aircraft in the set of
emissions data from the plurality of route segments;
determining by the processor whether an amount of a type
of emissions identified for the aircraft using the proposed flight
plan is greater than a threshold level; and
modifying by the processor a portion of the parameters for
the flight plan to reduce the effect of the emissions for the aircraft
and meet a set of objects for the flight plan until the flight plan
meets an objective.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.
Claims 1--4, 17-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tang (US 6, 134,500, iss. Oct. 17, 2000), Angelis
(US 7,109,882 B2, iss. Sept. 19, 2006), and Bos (US 7,580,808 B2, iss. Aug.
26, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 17-21 under 35 U.S. C. § 112, Second Paragraph
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that, even with the
apparently extraneous references to program code, a person of ordinary skill
2
Appeal2014-001981
Application 12/030,553
in the art would readily understand the claim as presently drafted. (Appeal
Br. 6). We agree that the multiple references to "program code" may be a
basis for an objection on the part of the Examiner, but they do not render the
claim indefinite, because the remaining step recitations are clear. (Id. at 3).
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 17-23 as
indefinite.
Rejection ofclaims 1--4, 22, 23, and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Angelis fails to
disclose the claimed "generating a flight plan for the aircraft taking into
account a total of each type of emission for the aircraft," because instead
Angelis discloses only taking into consideration the avoidance of interfering
emissions from non-vehicle sources, but not the consideration of emissions
from a vehicle for whom the route is being planned. (Reply Br. 2-3; see
also Appeal Br. 11-12).
Angelis discloses a method to determine an optimal sequence for
reading utility meters utilizing wireless communications from a mobile
operator or vehicle, which may take into account "data from interferors (e.g.,
RF emissions, a factory outputting smoke or generating emissions, etc.)."
(Angelis, col. 3, 11. 26-37). Tang discloses a method to determine a
minimum-cost flight plan, considering data such as "the shortest wind
distance at a specified altitude, and the cost of each minimum cost path," as
well as "weather data for all predetermined altitudes, aircraft weight and
payload data, and performance data using separate dynamic programming
computations over each arc." (Id. at col. 4, 11. 54---64). We do not find it
reasonable for the ordinary artisan, reading in Angelis about avoiding
3
Appeal2014-001981
Application 12/030,553
factory smoke, to modify Tang's flight path determination by also
considering the emissions of the aircraft, because neither Tang nor Angelis
disclose the concept of vehicle emissions affecting an optimal route plan. In
addition, Bos, which concerns "monitoring an emissions footprint of a
vehicle" (Bos, col. 2, 11. 5---6), does not address route planning.
The Examiner has thus failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness as to the feature of "generating a flight plan for the aircraft
taking into account a total of each type of emission for the aircraft," as
claimed. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of
dependent claims 2--4, 22, 23, and 25-30 that are rejected with claim 1.
Rejection of claims 17-19 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue claim 1 7 by reference to the arguments directed to
claim 1, asserting that the scope of the claims is similar. (Appeal Br. 19).
However, claim 17 includes no recitation of engine type, weight, altitude, or
route segments, and claim 1 does not recite an effect on the atmosphere.
Appellants thus waive arguments as to claim 1 7. Therefore, we affirm claim
17, as well as dependent claims 18, 19, and 21 that also were not argued.
Rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dependent claim 20 recites "determining whether an amount of each
type of emissions identified for the aircraft using the flight plan is greater
than a threshold level with respect to a set of altitudes at which the amount
of each type of emissions is identified."
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Bos, upon which the
Examiner relies, does not consider altitude for emissions, because Bos is
4
Appeal2014-001981
Application 12/030,553
only concerned with ground-level vehicle emissions in which altitude plays
no part. (Reply Br. 7-8). The Examiner cites to Bos' Abstract, column 2,
lines 5-15, and column 4, lines 12-50. (Final Act. 9-10). These sections
disclose measuring vehicle emissions, but do not disclose a threshold or
consideration of altitude. The Examiner has thus failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of claim 20. As a result, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We affirm the rejection of claims 17-19 and 21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We reverse the rejection of claims 1--4, 20, 23, and 25-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5