Ex Parte Naimer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

12236208 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOACHIM LAURENZ NAIMER, FRANK HUMMEL,
DAVID ZEITOUNI, and PARTRICK KROHN
____________

Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-27, 29, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a monitoring system that notifies an operator,
such as an airplane or helicopter pilot, that an aircraft is approaching a
geographical feature of interest, such as a runway, taxiway, intersection,
helipad, or another aircraft. The monitoring system includes a database
having geo-referenced airport charts for a number of airports and
information on at least one geographical feature of interest for each airport.
The system further includes a processor, a positioning system configured to
determine the position, heading, track, and/or velocity of the aircraft and to
transmit that data to the processor, and a display unit configured to display
the geo-referenced airport chart, the present position of the aircraft, and at
least one geographical feature of interest on the geo-referenced airport chart
(Spec. ¶ [0021]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A monitoring system for notifying an operator that an
aircraft is approaching a geographical feature of interest; the
system comprising

a database containing geo-referenced charts, wherein
each geo-referenced chart contains information related to at
least one geographical feature of interest;

a processor;

a positioning system configured to identify at least one of
the position, heading, track, altitude, and velocity of the
aircraft; and

a display unit configured to display the geo-reference
airport chart and at least one of the present position of the
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

3
aircraft and the at least one geographical feature of interest on
the chart;

wherein the processor utilizes the at least one of aircraft
position, heading, track, altitude, and velocity data from the
positioning system of define a containment area always
encompassing at least the aircraft and an area surrounding the
aircraft, determines whether the at least one geographical
feature of interest is at least partially located within the
containment area, and initiates a notification signal upon
determining that the at least one geographical feature of interest
is at least partially located within the containment area.

REFERENCES
Pepitone US 7,630,829 B2 Dec. 08, 2009
(filed Sep. 19, 2005)
Meunier US 2007/0078591 Al Apr. 05, 2007
Khatwa US 2004/0225440 Al Nov. 11, 2004
Doose US 2004/0006412 Al Jan. 08, 2004
Pullen US 6,614,397 B2 Sep. 02, 2003

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 14, and 24-27, 29, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Pepitone.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 12, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Pepitone.
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Pepitone in view of Khatwa.
The Examiner rejected claims 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Pepitone in view of Meunier.
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Pepitone in view of Doose.
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

4
The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Doose in view of Pepitone and Pullen.

ISSUES
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Pepitone
does not teach initiating a notification signal upon determining that the at
least one geographical feature of interest is at least partially located within
the containment area (App. Br. 8) and that Pepitone does not teach the use of
geo-referenced charts (App. Br. 9).
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants argue that Pepitone
does not teach visual notification comprising changing the display of the
geographical feature of interest (App. Br. 10).
With respect to claim 24, Appellants contend that Pepitone does not
teach a containment area having a fixed positional relationship to the aircraft
(App. Br. 11).
With respect to claim 8, Appellants assert that Pepitone does not teach
or suggest highlighting and/or flashing the geographical feature on the
display unit (App. Br. 12).
With respect to claim 13, Appellants contend that Pepitone does not
teach ceasing notification upon the aircraft moving parallel to the
geographical feature of interest for at least one of a predetermined distance
and a predetermined time (App. Br. 12-13).
With respect to claim 21, Appellants argue that Pepitone does not
teach a processor that receives information about aircraft parameters
including at least one of fuel flow, throttle settings, engine power settings,
and engine RPM (App. Br. 13).
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

5
With respect to claim 15, Appellants argue that neither Pepitone nor
Meunier teach or suggest initiating a notification when the geographical
feature becomes at least partially located within a containment area around
the aircraft (App. Br. 15).
With respect to claims 16-19, Appellants argue that neither Pepitone
nor Meunier teach or suggest a processor that determines whether the
distance from the aircraft to the runway is decreasing (App. Br. 15).
With respect to claims 20, 22, and 23, Appellants contend that the
asserted references fail to teach all the limitations of parent claim 15 (App.
Br. 15-17).
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does Pepitone teach initiating a notification signal upon
determining that the at least one geographical feature of interest is at least
partially located within the containment area?
2. Does Pepitone teach the use of geo-referenced charts?
3. Does Pepitone teach visual notification comprising changing the
display of the geographical feature of interest?
4. Does Pepitone teach a containment area having a fixed positional
relationship to the aircraft?
5. Does Pepitone teach or suggest highlighting and/or flashing the
geographical feature on the display unit?
6. Does Pepitone teach ceasing notification upon the aircraft moving
parallel to the geographical feature of interest for at least one of a
predetermined distance and a predetermined time?
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

6
7. Does Pepitone teach a processor that receives information about
aircraft parameters including at least one of fuel flow, throttle settings,
engine power settings, and engine RPM?
8. Does the combination of Pepitone and Meunier teach or suggest
initiating a notification when the geographical feature becomes at least
partially located within a containment area around the aircraft?
9. Does the combination of Pepitone and Meunier teach or suggest a
processor that determines whether the distance from the aircraft to the
runway is decreasing?
10. Does the combination of Pepitone and Doose teach all the
limitations of claim 20?
11. Does the combination of Doose, Pepitone, and Pullen teach all the
limitations of claims 22 and 23?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

7
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”)

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, 14, 26, 27, 29, AND 30
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument that Pepitone does not
teach initiating a notification signal upon determining that the at least one
geographical feature of interest is at least partially located within the
containment area (App. Br. 8). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Pepitone teaches this limitation by teaching notification of the approach or
proximity of other aircraft (Ans. 6, 18, 19; Pepitone col. 8, ll. 29-33).
Appellants’ further argument that Pepitone does not teach geo-
referenced charts (App. Br. 9) is also not persuasive to show Examiner error.
Appellants disclose that “geo-referenced” airport charts are those “in which
each coordinate on the chart is indexed to a particular geographical location
having a specific latitude and longitude, as determined relative to a fixed
global reference frame such as the WGS 84” (Spec. ¶ [0014]). Pepitone
teaches GPS inputs (110, 120) to its ground incursion avoidance system
(Figs. 1, 2). We find that GPS is within Appellants’ definition of a “geo-
referenced” system. Accordingly, we find that Pepitone teaches charts that
are geo-referenced, as the claims require.
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

8
We find that Pepitone teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 3, 5-7, 14, 26, 27, 29, and 30 not separately argued. We will
sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection.
CLAIMS 4 AND 25
Appellants’ argument that Pepitone does not teach a “change in
display of the at least one geographical feature of interest on the geo-
referenced chart” (claim 4) is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Pepitone’s disclosure of the color change of the zones around
aircraft (green, then amber, then red) corresponds to this claim limitation
(Ans. 20).
Because we find that Pepitone teaches all the limitations of claims 4
and 25, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection.
CLAIM 24
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred.
Claim 24 recites “defining a containment area that has a fixed positional
relationship to the aircraft.” Appellants’ arguments correctly point that the
ordinary and customary meaning of “fixed” is “unchanging” (App. Br. 11).
Appellants note in the Brief that this is in contrast to a variable containment
area such as that disclosed in paragraph [0070] of the Specification (id.).
We agree with Appellants that Pepitone teaches altering the aircraft’s zone
of protection with changes in several aircraft parameters (App. Br. 11).
We find that Pepitone does not teach all the limitations of claim 24.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection.
CLAIMS 8, 9, AND 12
We are not persuaded by Appellants that Pepitone fails to teach or
suggest that, when at least one geographical feature of interest is at least
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

9
partially located within the containment area, at least one geographical
feature of interest is highlighted and flashed on the display unit (App. Br.
12). We agree with the Examiner that, given Pepitone’s teaching of warning
the pilot that an aircraft is in the zone of protection (by rendering the zone of
protection in green, then amber, then red), modifying Pepitone to include
highlighting and flashing would have been an obvious design choice (Ans.
8-9), in order to warn the pilot of impending collision (Ans. 22).
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 8, as
well as claims 9 and 12 not separately argued, as being unpatentable over
Pepitone. We will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
CLAIM 13
We agree with Appellants that Pepitone does not teach ceasing
notification when the aircraft moves parallel to a geographic feature for at
least one of a predetermined distance and a predetermined time (App. Br.
12-13). We will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 13.
CLAIM 21
We agree with Appellants that Pepitone does not teach a processor
receiving information about aircraft parameters including at least one of fuel
flow, throttle settings, engine power settings, and engine RPM (App. Br. 13).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 21.
CLAIMS 10 AND 11
Appellants do not present separate argument for these claims, instead
relying on the arguments made with respect to parent claim 1 (App. Br. 13-
14). We will therefore sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11 over
Pepitone in view of Khatwa, for the same reasons given with respect to
claim 1, supra.
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

10
CLAIM 15
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15
because neither Pepitone nor Meunier teach initiating a notification when a
geographical feature becomes at least partially located within a containment
area around the aircraft (App. Br. 14-15) is not persuasive. We agree with
the Examiner, who finds that Pepitone teaches notification when an aircraft
comes into contact with the zone of protection of another aircraft and that
Meunier teaches notification of runway incursion (see, e.g., Meunier Fig. 1
and ¶¶ [0052]-[0054]). We agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Pepitone and Meunier suggests notification when a runway is at least
partially within the containment area around an aircraft (Ans. 11-12).
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 15 as
unpatentable over Pepitone in view of Meunier. We will sustain the § 103
rejection.
CLAIMS 16-19
We agree with Appellants that neither Pepitone nor Meunier teaches a
processor determining whether the distance from the aircraft to the runway is
decreasing (App. Br. 15). We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 16-19.
CLAIM 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 15, which stands rejected as
unpatentable over Pepitone in view of Meunier. The rejection of claim 20
lacks the Meunier reference; thus, the Examiner’s asserted combination of
Pepitone and Doose lacks the necessary teachings of Meunier. We therefore
agree with Appellants that the combination of Pepitone and Doose fails to
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

11
teach all the elements of claim 20. We will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection.
CLAIMS 22 AND 23
Claims 22 and 23, like claim 20, depend from claim 15. The rejection
of claim 15 requires the teachings of Meunier, which are absent from the
rejection at issue (Doose in view of Pepitone and Pullen). We therefore
agree with Appellants that the combination of Doose, Pepitone, and Pullen
fails to teach all the elements of claims 22 and 23. We will not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Pepitone teaches initiating a notification signal upon determining
that the at least one geographical feature of interest is at least partially
located within the containment area.
2. Pepitone teaches the use of geo-referenced charts.
3. Pepitone teaches visual notification comprising changing the
display of the geographical feature of interest.
4. Pepitone does not teach a containment area having a fixed
positional relationship to the aircraft.
5. Pepitone suggests highlighting and/or flashing the geographical
feature on the display unit.
6. Pepitone does not teach ceasing notification upon the aircraft
moving parallel to the geographical feature of interest for at least one of a
predetermined distance and a predetermined time.
Appeal 2011-007345
Application 12/236,208

12
7. Pepitone does not teach a processor that receives information about
aircraft parameters including at least one of fuel flow, throttle settings,
engine power settings, and engine RPM.
8. The combination of Pepitone and Meunier suggests initiating a
notification when the geographical feature becomes at least partially located
within a containment area around the aircraft.
9. The combination of Pepitone and Meunier does not teach or suggest
a processor that determines whether the distance from the aircraft to the
runway is decreasing.
10. The combination of Pepitone and Doose does not teach all the
limitations of claim 20.
11. The combination of Doose, Pepitone, and Pullen does not teach all
the limitations of claims 22 and 23.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12, 14, 15, 25-27, 29, and
30 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13 and 16-24 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Pgc/peb