Ex Parte Landers

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 24, 2019

14979052 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/979,052 12/22/2015 Thomas Landers 15846 7590 06/26/2019 LKGLOBAL (GD-Gulfstream) 7010 East Cochise Road Scottsdale, AZ 85253 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. 014.9240 5686 EXAMINER BLACK-CHILDRESS, RAJSHEED 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2019 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): generaldynamics@lkglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS LANDERS Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979 ,052 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1--4 and 7-18. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 5 and 6. Ans. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b) We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to warning ground crew towing an aircraft of a potential collision with obstacles or other structures. Spec. ,r,r 1-3. In the Specification, Appellant indicates that although an aircraft may comprise a collision warning system, there are instances in which the ground crew "speak languages that are different from the native language of the flight crew." Spec. ,r 5. In a disclosed embodiment of the collision warning system a computer device is configured to determine the location of the collision warning system and "select an active linguistic profile based at least on part on the location, where the active linguistic profile includes at least one of a language and a dialect." Spec. ,r 7. Further, the computer device is configured to alert the ground crew of a potential collision using the active linguistic profile. Spec. ,r 7. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A collision warning system, comprising: a plurality of proximity sensors configured to mount on an aircraft and to generate a proximity signal; and a computer device communicatively coupled with the plurality of proximity sensors, the computer device configured to: determine a location in which the collision warning system is located, wherein the location includes at least one of a country and a region; select an active linguistic profile based at least on part on the location, wherein the active linguistic profile includes at least one of a language and a dialect; and 2 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 alert ground crew of potential collisions using the active linguistic profile and based on the proximity signal. The Examiner's Rejections 1. Claims 1, 7-12, and 14--18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Starr et al. (US 2015/0194059 Al; July 9, 2015) ("Starr") and Daly et al. (US 2014/0163948 Al; June 12, 2014) ("Daly"). Final Act. 2-9. 2. Claims 2--4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Starr, Daly, and Lewin (US 2014/0223365 Al; Aug. 7, 2014). Final Act. 9-11. ANALYSIS 2 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Starr and Daly. Final Act. 2--4. We begin our analysis with a brief review of each reference. Starr generally relates to an obstacle detection system. Starr, Title. Similar to Appellant's invention, Starr describes "crew members maneuvering a relatively large vehicle, such as an aircraft, may have difficulty in being aware of obstacles around the vehicle with which the vehicle may potentially collide." Starr ,r 2. Starr describes a system in 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed March 7, 2018 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed July 3, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action, mailed July 26, 2017 ("Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). 3 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 which an overhead representation of the vehicle and potential obstacles is presented on a display to the crew member. Starr ,r,r 4, 6, 22-23. Starr describes that information such as a threat level of an obstacle (i.e., based on proximity of the obstacle or likelihood of a collision) may be conveyed to the user via the graphical representation. Starr ,r 25. In a disclosed embodiment, Starr describes the obstacle detection system as applied to an aircraft. Starr ,r 29, Fig. 1. Starr describes that sensors (including GPS sensors) may be disposed on various portions of an aircraft. Starr ,r,r 31-32, Fig. 1. Starr further describes the obstacle detection system may comprise a device ( e.g., a tablet or remote computer) that receives sensor data from the sensors. Starr ,r,r 39--42, Fig. 1. As shown in the embodiment illustrated in Figure 1, user 18, who may be a ground crew member, using device 20, which may be configured to display a GUI including a graphical representation of aircraft 12 and one or more of obstacles 16A- 16D on an overhead image of surface 22, upon which aircraft 12 and the one or more obstacles 16A-16D are positioned. Starr ,r 29, see Fig. 1. Additionally, Starr discloses an embodiment wherein the device ( displaying the overhead view of the vehicle and obstacles) being used by the user also contains a sensor to indicate the position of the user. Starr ,r,r 41, 54. Daly is generally directed to communication systems and, more particularly, "to converting parameters to a specific language and/or media." Daly ,r 1. In a disclosed embodiment, Daly describes parameters associated with the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) may be converted to a specified language or languages. Daly ,r,r 4, 23. Further, parameters may be converted to a graphic, image or video, or may be converted to instructions "in a language based on a parameter." Daly ,r 4. Daly also discloses the 4 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 language in which to convert a parameter "may be determined dynamically based on a location of a device" and that dialects may be incorporated in the selected conversion. Daly ,r 7. In a disclosed embodiment, a parameter to be converted may be provided to a conversion server, which may determine the location of the intended recipient of the message, for example, based on a GPS location of the intended recipient. 3 Daly ,r,r 29-31. The conversion server may determine the language and dialect based on the location of the intended recipient. Daly ,r,r 33-35. Based at least on these findings, the Examiner finds Starr teaches a plurality of proximity sensors configured to mount on an aircraft and to generate a proximity signal; and a computer device communicatively coupled with the plurality of proximity sensors, the computer device configured to determine a location in which the collision warning system is located (including at least one of a country and region) and alert ground crew of potential collisions based on the proximity signal(s). Final Act. 2-3 (citing Starr ,r,r 6, 13, 25, 31-32, 35, 39, 41--42, 54, Figs. 1, 4). Additionally, the Examiner finds Daly teaches selecting an active linguistic profile (including at least one of a language and dialect) based on a determined location, and alert ground crew of potential collisions using the active linguistic profile. Final Act. 3--4 (citingDalyi-fi-f 7, 23, 31-35, 38). The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the active linguistic profile taught by Daly with the obstacle detection system of Starr "in order to alert the ground crew, in [] their own language, of [a] potential collision." Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4--5 (citing Daly ,r,r 1-2) 3 Daly describes the intended recipient "may comprise a device or devices." Daly i-f 38. 5 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 ( suggesting the need for the recipient of an alert to be able to understand the alert message)). Appellant argues the Examiner's reason to combine the teachings of Starr and Daly "simply restates the benefits of the claimed invention without regard to the teachings of the references." Br. 6. More particularly, Appellant argues Starr is silent with respect to a linguistic profile. Br. 7-8. Rather, Appellant asserts, Starr describes a system of visible indicia to a user indicating a possible collision. Br. 7-8. Further, Appellant asserts the audible alerts of Starr is merely a beep or tone at varying frequencies or patterns. Br. 8. Thus, because Starr does not teach spoken languages, Appellant argues there is no reason to combine the teachings of Daly with those of Starr. Br. 8. Additionally, Appellant argues the emergency alert and warning systems disclosed in Daly "have no relation to collision warning systems" and that Daly suggests that any conversion would be disabled if the device were in an airplane. Br. 8 ( citing Daly ,r 8). Appellant asserts the Examiner fails to provide a sufficient rationale to combine the references and instead has relied on impermissible hindsight. Br. 8-9. As an initial matter, we note, as does the Examiner, that Starr is not limited to providing only a visual indicia to a user. See Ans. 3 ( citing Starr ,r,r 6, 13, 25, 27, 35). Rather, Starr describes the visual indicia is an example of an alert mechanism (see, e.g., Starr ,r,r 6, 25) and expressly teaches the "alert may be audible, visual, somatosensory, or any combination thereof." Starr ,r 27. Contrary to Appellant's assertion, we do not find Starr to limit its audible alerts to beeps or tones. Rather, an audible alert is one that can be heard, such as a spoken ( or synthesized) warning or instruction. 6 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 See e.g., Starr ,r 59 ( describing the user device may include a speaker for delivering audible information). Also, as discussed above, the Examiner identifies, within the disclosure of Daly, the importance of an alert message being able to be understood by its intended recipient. Ans. 4--5 (citing Daly ,r,r 1-2). Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that "to improve the system taught by Starr," i.e., an obstacle detection system that provides an alert to the user, it would have been obvious to provide the alert message in a language that is understood by the intended recipient, as taught by Daly. Ans. 4--5. Additionally, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's argument that Daly teaches the message conversion (translation) is disabled when the device is in an airplane (see Br. 8 (citing Daly ,r 8)). The scenario described in the identified section of Daly relates to if the determined motion of the device indicates it is in an airplane, a default language may be used. Daly ,r 8. This scenario is inapposite because the device, as taught by Starr, is not located in the airplane, but rather is with the user (ground crew). Appellant also argues that Daly is non-analogous art to Appellant's claimed invention. Br. 9-11. In particular, Appellant asserts Daly is in the "telecommunications industry," which is concerned with the transmission of information over great distances. Br. 10. In contrast, Appellant contends the claimed invention is in the aircraft tow/tug field of endeavor and is not concerned with the transmission of emergency alert messages of great distances. Br. 10. Additionally, Appellant argues "Daly is also not reasonably pertinent to the problem of which Appellant was concerned." Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues Daly is concerned with delivering emergency alert messages over great distances ( e.g., one or more states or 7 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 hundreds of square miles) in which users may speak different languages. Br. 10. In contrast, Appellant asserts the claimed invention does not provide potential collision alerts over "great distances spanning multiple language areas." Br. 11. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention ( even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor ( even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Here, we disagree with Appellant and find that Daly is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., Appellant). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. As described in the Specification, Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention relates to "warn[ing] tug drivers of potential collisions in a language determined by the location of the systems." Spec. ,r 1. According to the Specification, aircraft travel (i.e., great distances) to locations where the ground crew speak languages that are different from those of the flight crew and "it is desirable to provide a collision warning system that is operable for ground crews in various countries who speak various languages and dialects." Spec. ,r 5. In other words, it is desirable to provide an alert message (e.g., collision warning) in a language and dialect such that it may be understood by the ground crew 8 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 (i.e., the intended recipient). As discussed above, Daly is also concerned with providing an alert message in a language that is understood by the intended recipient. See Daly ,r,r 2, 7, 23, 31-35, 38. Accordingly, Daly is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (Appellant) and is, therefore, analogous art. Appellant also argues that the proffered combination fails to teach alerting a ground crew of potential collisions using an active linguistic profile. Br. 12. In particular, Appellant asserts the proposed combination "results in an obstacle detection system that warns of potential collisions using visible indicia ( color, shading, line patterns, fill, ruler image, etc) ... that also delivers common alerting protocol messages for exchanging hazard emergency alerts and public warnings over various networks." Br. 12 (citing Starr ,r 25; Daly ,r 26). The U.S. Supreme Court has held the relevant inquiry in an obviousness analysis is whether the Examiner has set forth "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval inKSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)). Moreover, "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, Â§ 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. As discussed above, the Examiner finds, inter alia, Starr teaches alerting ground crew of a potential collision based on the proximity signal. Final Act. 3 (citing Starr ,r,r 6, 13, 25, 35, Figs. 1, 4); Ans. 8. The Examiner 9 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 also finds the alert of Starr may be audible and/or visual. Final Act. 13 ( citing Starr ,r 27); Ans. 8. Additionally, the Examiner finds Daly teaches, inter alia, selecting an active linguistic profile based at least on part of the location of the device (or intended recipient). Final Act. 3 (citing Daly ,r,r 7, 23, 31-35, 38); Ans. 9. The Examiner explains it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to notify the ground crew of a potential collision (as taught by Starr) by using the active linguistic profile (taught by Daly) so that the ground crew could be alerted to a potential collision in their own language. Final Act. 4, 14; Ans. 10. The Examiner's proposed combination modifies the alert notification of Starr to incorporate the active linguistic profile of Daly such that the audible alert is communicated to the intended recipient (i.e., ground crew member) in the determined language/ dialect of the intended recipient. Appellant does not point to any evidence of record that the proposed combination would be "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Thus, contrary to Appellant's assertions, the Examiner has set forth articulated reasoning with rational underpinning from the cited art of record in support of the proffered combination of references and legal conclusion of obviousness. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 12 and 18, which recite similar 10 Appeal2018-008684 Application 14/979,052 limitations and were not argued separately with particularity. See Br. 12-13; see also 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2--4, 7-11, and 13-17, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See Br. 12- 13; see also 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 11