Ex Parte Elchynski

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2017

11733349 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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. 11/733,349 04/10/2007 Joseph J. Elchynski H0011367-5822/ 400.1246U 8020 89953 7590 03/29/2017 HONFYWFT T /FOGG EXAMINER Patent Services 115 Tabor Road MANCHO, RONNIE M P.O. Box 377 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER MUKK1S LI .A1IN.S, JNJ U/SOU 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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 docket@fogglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH J. ELCHYNSKI Appeal 2015-004817 Application 11/733,349 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Joseph J. Elchynski (Appellant)1 2appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s April 24, 2014 final decision rejecting claims 1—6 and 8—13. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Honeywell International Inc. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 7 and 14 are canceled. Id. at 11, 13 (Claims App’x). Appeal 2015-004817 Application 11/733,349 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosure relates to “providing navigation guidance to pilots that are landing in low visibility conditions and/or at airports that do not contain a ground infrastructure in place to support [a] precision approach.” Spec. 2:4—6. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 11 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief3, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A navigation system, comprising in combination: a navigation processor that provides as an output a navigation solution; and a Kalman filter that receives data from a GPS sensor and the navigation solution from the navigation processor, and estimates navigation corrections that are provided to the navigation processor, wherein the Kalman filter uses a dynamic range error model that changes as a function of ephemeris age, wherein the dynamic range model weighs measurements from satellites with newer ephemeris more than satellites with older ephemeris, wherein the ephemeris is uploaded from a control segment to the GPS satellite, the control segment determining satellite orbits and updating the navigation messages of the satellites. REJECTION Claims 1—6 and 8—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diesel (US 6,094,607, iss. July 25, 2000), Han (US 2008/0111738 Al, pub. May 15, 2008), and Tekawy (US 2008/0154502 Al, pub. June 26, 2008). 3 We note that the pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered. Our citations herein to the Appeal Brief refer to consecutive page numbering starting with the first page. 2 Appeal 2015-004817 Application 11/733,349 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Diesel discloses a navigation system substantially as claimed in independent claim 1, including a Kalman filter that uses a dynamic range error model, but “does not discuss its usage regarding ‘ephemeris upload age’ as claimed” or uploading ephemeris from a control segment. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that Han teaches a navigation system including a Kalman filter with a dynamic range error model that weighs measurements from satellites with newer ephemeris more than satellites with older ephemeris, and reasons that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art “to modify Diesel as taught by Han for the purpose of improving accuracy in the position calculation using age of ephemeris.” Id. at 3 (citing Han, || 8, 18, 26, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48, Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that Tekawy teaches a global positioning system (GPS) in which ephemeris is uploaded from a control segment, and reasons that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to upload ephemeris similarly to “provid[e] compatibility with GPS/GNSS systems” and to “provid[e] long-term navigational information including many sets of ephemeris which advantageously removes other unpredictable perturbations by daily uploading the ephemeris.” Id. Appellant argues that Han does not teach a Kalman filter that weighs measurements from satellites with newer ephemeris more than satellites with older ephemeris because Han “does not discuss weighing measurements from different satellites.” App. Br. 6—7. Appellant contends that “Han is directed to ‘a standalone navigation receiver. . and its mathematical model “is directed to predicting the orbit and position of a single satellite at 3 Appeal 2015-004817 Application 11/733,349 a time.” Id. at 7 (citing Han, H 29, 39, 42, 43). Appellant further argues that “the position fix module [of Han] uses the predicted ephemeris, as opposed to actual broadcast ephemeris, to determine the position of the satellites when the system is not in communication with the satellite.” Id. at 9. The Examiner responds by interpreting the term weighs as used in claim 1 to mean “gives preference to” or “attaches importance to.” Ans. 5. The Examiner finds this interpretation to be consistent with Appellant’s use thereof in the Specification. Id. (citing Spec., 15:12—19). The Examiner determines that in a manner similar to Appellant, Han “discloses a similar Kalman filter which calculates a more accurate GPS navigation solution by using ephemeris data that is newer compared to ephemeris data that is older. Han emphasizes . . . the necessity to use current or newer ephemeris to get a better or precise GPS navigation solution.” Id. at 6 (citing Han, H 8, 39, 47). The Examiner also finds that Han teaches: a weight matrix in its Kalman filter “wherein ephemeris that is newer is used in calculating a GPS navigation solution better than ephemeris data that is older” {id. (citing Han, 11 8, 39)); the use of four GPS satellites to compute a navigation position {id. at 8 (citing Han, H 3, 26, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47)); and a standalone navigation receiver that weighs ephemeris data as recited in claim 1 {id.). Appellant replies by agreeing with the Examiner’s construction of the term weighs. Reply Br. 3. Appellant asserts, however, that Han does not disclose “giving preference to ‘measurements from satellites with newer ephemeris more than measurements from satellites with older ephemeris I” 4 Appeal 2015-004817 Application 11/733,349 Id. at 4. Appellant also argues that Han’s mathematical model “predicts the position of a single satellite.” Id. at 5. Han recognizes that “[a] GPS receiver uses . . . down-loaded ephemeris to accurately compute the position of. . . visible satellites. Based on these satellite positions, the position of the receiver is estimated. This computed position is more accurate if the ephemeris used is current.” Han 122. “Thus, it is always necessary to download and use current ephemeris to minimize . . . position error and the [receiver Time-To-First-Fix (TTFF)].” Id. However, because “it is not always possible to have current ephemeris in the memory of the GPS receiver” and because “new ephemeris download from each of the satellites involved . . . may require eighteen seconds or more for each satellite after the start of the signal tracking process,” Han “provides techniques to generate sets of more precise ephemeris that are valid over a larger time interval.” Id. 22—23. Han’s technique uses a “set of present and historical broadcast ephemeris and measurements” to “build satellite orbit models to fit the historical data. These models are then used to predict the Satellite Vehicle (SV) orbit and simultaneously generate . . . predicted ephemeris.” Id. 123. This predicted ephemeris is then filtered and used to determine the receiver position. Id. 148. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Han uses a weight matrix in its mathematical model to mitigate errors associated with the use of older ephemeris. Ans. 6—7 (citing Han, 139). However, as correctly noted by Appellants, “the mathematical model of Han predicts the position of a single satellite.” Reply Br. 5 (citing Han, || 37, 39). Indeed, Han’s technique 5 Appeal 2015-004817 Application 11/733,349 predicts the orbit and position for each satellite position, discretely, and then the collection of predicted satellite positions is used to determine receiver location. See Han || 41—45, 48. Claim 1 requires the dynamic range error model to weigh measurements from various satellites based on the age of the ephemeris in each satellite. See App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x). This, Han does not do. The Examiner interprets ephemeris age in the abstract rather than as required by claim 1. See Reply Br. 4. The Examiner does not direct us to, nor do we find any indication that Han weighs measurements from different satellites based on ephemeris age as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of its dependent claims 2—6 and 8, as being unpatentable over Diesel, Han, and Tekawy. Independent claims 9 and 10 each recite “wherein the dynamic range model weighs measurements from satellites with newer ephemeris more than satellites with older ephemeris” similarly to claim 1. App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x). Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10, nor of claims 11—13 that depend from claim 10, as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Diesel, Han, and Tekawy. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6 and 8—13 is reversed. REVERSED 6