Ex Parte Lacko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2017

13590503 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 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. 13/590,503 08/21/2012 Ivan Lacko H0034796 (002.2676) 8028 89955 7590 09/05/2017 HONEYWELL/LKGlobal Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER TRIVEDI, ATUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3667 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2017 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 docketing @LKGlobal.com DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IVAN LACKO, CLAUDIA KEINRATH, FRANTISEK MIKULU, and YUJIA CAO Appeal 2015-005461 Application 13/590,503 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—6, 9—16, and 19—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Honeywell International Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2015-005461 Application 13/590,503 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1,11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for generating a flight display, comprising: determining a position of an aircraft with reference to an airport, the position comprising an altitude and a lateral position with respect to an approach procedure for the airport; calculating a distance required for the aircraft to decelerate and descend for entering a final approach gate of the airport in a stabilized configuration, wherein deceleration comprises a reduction in aircraft thrust, an extension of aircraft flaps, and an extension of aircraft landing gear; comparing the position of the aircraft with the distance required for the aircraft to decelerate and descend so as to arrive at a final gate of the airport in a stabilized aircraft configuration; and generating a flight display comprising an advisory based on a result of the comparing, wherein generating the flight display comprises: (1) based on the calculated distance and the comparing, issuing a first graphical advisory via the flight display to perform the reduction in aircraft thrust; (2) based on the calculated distance and the comparing, at a time subsequent to issuing the first graphical advisory, issuing a second graphical advisory to perform the extension of aircraft flaps; and (3) based on the calculated distance and the comparing, at a time subsequent to issuing the second graphical advisory, issuing a third graphical advisory to perform the extension of aircraft landing gear. Rejection Claims 1—6, 9—16, and 19—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Deker (US 2009/0043434 Al, published Feb. 12, 2009) 2 Appeal 2015-005461 Application 13/590,503 and Ryan et al. (US 2005/0261813 Al, published Nov. 24, 2005). Final Act. 2-9. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 1—5. We concur with Appellants’ argument, App. Br. 11, that the Examiner has not shown the combination of Deker and Ryan teaches issuing the three graphical advisories in the order claimed. In particular, we agree with Appellants, App. Br. 13, that the cited portions of Ryan do not teach issuing the second graphical advisory to perform the extension of aircraft flaps “at a time subsequent to issuing the first graphical advisory” (hereinafter, the “second advisory limitation”), as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on paragraph 46 of Ryan for teaching the second advisory limitation. Final Act. 3. Paragraph 46 relates to a “configuration check” to determine whether the aircraft is “in the slot,” which is “usually made between the runway outer marker and some distance from the runway.” Ryan para. 44. Thus, the aircraft has not yet landed when the second advisory is issued. Appellants contend that the portion of Ryan relied on by the Examiner for the first graphical advisory (relating to reduction in aircraft thrust) occurs after the aircraft has landed and, therefore, would occur after the second graphical advisory, contrary to the language of claim 1. App. Br. 12. Paragraph 88 of Ryan, relied on by the Examiner for the first graphical advisory, Final Act. 3, teaches that “[according to the above method, the pilot receives a warning when the remaining runway distance 3 Appeal 2015-005461 Application 13/590,503 DrW is insufficient to safely decelerate the aircraft 121 at the current deceleration function,” Ryan para. 88. The Examiner finds that “Ryan states the possibility that the aircraft is still in the air” when issuing the first advisory because paragraph 89 uses the phrase “if the aircraft 121 is traveling at a rate of 75 knots over ground.” Ans. 2. The Examiner finds, based on Ryan’s paragraph 89, that “a person of skill in the art may well conclude that the thrust warning in Ryan takes place before a warning to lower the flaps, or extending the landing gear.” Id. The “above method” mentioned in Ryan’s paragraph 88 refers to the method described in the preceding paragraphs relating to Figure 6, which “illustrates a method for monitoring landing overrun after touchdown.” Ryan para. 81. Thus, one of skill in the art would understand the speed “over ground” in paragraph 89 of Ryan to refer to ground speed, as opposed to air speed. These paragraphs of Ryan, therefore, teach issuing the warning as to ground speed after landing, and do not support the Examiner’s finding that Ryan teaches issuing the second graphical advisory after the first graphical advisory, as required by claim 1. The Examiner finds in the Answer that “Ryan teaches detecting a correct flap position (| 44) after determining path projections (136) based on a comparison of airspeed with an acceptable maximum value (143)” and “also teaches adjusting the thrust to bring the aircraft to a safe speed (124) before measuring performance data, including required gear and flap configurations (| 29).” Ans. 2—3. These findings refer to checking and adjusting thrust prior to checking flap position and landing gear, but the Examiner does not find these portions of Ryan teach issuing a graphical warning to perform the reduction in aircraft thrust, which must occur prior to 4 Appeal 2015-005461 Application 13/590,503 the second graphical advisory according to the language of claim 1. Absent such findings supported by evidence, or reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have issued the graphical advisories in the order recited in claim 1, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—6, 9, 10, and 21—24, which depend therefrom. Independent claims 11 and 20 similarly recite the above-mentioned order of issuing the same graphical advisories. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 20, and dependent claims 12—16 and 19, for the same reasons. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 9—16, and 19—24. REVERSED 5