Ex Parte Perez Villar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

14457084 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/457,084 08/11/2014
120226 7590 09/19/2018
Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Victor Perez Villar
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.
13-1135-US-NP 0177US 4534
EXAMINER
DAGER, JONATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PatentAdmin@boeing.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR PEREZ VILLAR, ENRIQUE CASADO,
IV AN MAZA, and FERNANDO CABALLERO
Appeal2018-000923
Application 14/457 ,084 1
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 5-12, and 16-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nichols (US 2005/0197749 Al, published Sept. 8, 2005)
and Feigh (US 2010/0286859 Al, published Nov. 11, 2010). 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Boeing Company ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided by
3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
2 Claims 2--4 and 13-15 are cancelled. Br. 11-12 (Claims App.).
Appeal2018-000923
Application 14/457,084
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for commanding a payload of an aircraft, the
method comprising:
receiving a plurality of trajectory events which comprise
trajectory information of the aircraft;
generating and storing a plurality of payload commands
using statements of payload intent, wherein the statements of
payload intent comprises an operation statement and an
execution interval, and wherein the execution interval is defined
by a beginning trigger and an end trigger; and
synchronizing each one of the stored payload commands
with at least one of the plurality of trajectory events, wherein the
beginning trigger and the end trigger are further associated with
at least one of the plurality of trajectory events.
Br. 11 (Claims App.).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1, 5-12, and 16-26 collectively. Br. 7-10.
We select claim 1 as representative; and claims 5-12 and 16-26 stand or fall
with claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
For claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nichols discloses generating
payload commands using statements of payload intent ("ACRMs
transformed to sensor commands for gathering surveillance data"), wherein
the statements of payload intent comprise an operation statement and an
execution interval ("time parameter"); and synchronizing each payload
command with at least one of the trajectory events ("synchronizing sensor
collection plan with flight path data"), wherein triggers are associated with
at least one of the trajectory events ("sensor imaging triggered when aircraft
2
Appeal2018-000923
Application 14/457,084
in optimal position"). Final Act. 2-3 (citing Nichols ,r,r 11, 22-24). The
Examiner explains, although Nichols discloses a timing constraint (i.e., a
trigger) associated with imaging a target during a mission, it is
unascertainable from Nichols' disclosure if there are beginning triggers and
end triggers in the execution interval. Id. at 3.
The Examiner finds that Feigh teaches specifying an operation
interval for video surveillance data as a function of a specified time period,
that is, an execution interval with a beginning trigger and an end trigger. Id.
(citing Feigh ,r,r 32-34). The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to modify Nichols' method in view of this teaching in Feigh to use
the execution interval to provide multiple images of a selected target. Id.
Appellant contends Nichols and Feigh do not disclose "generating ...
payload commands using statements of payload intent ... comprising ... an
execution interval ... defined by a beginning trigger and an end trigger" and
"synchronizing each one of the stored payload commands with at least one
of the plurality of trajectory events, wherein the beginning trigger and the
end trigger are further associated with at least one of the plurality of
trajectory events," as recited in claim 1. Br. 7. In this regard, Appellant
contends Nichols does not tie the "image acquisition time" to trajectory
events of an aircraft (id. at 8), and neither Nichols nor Feigh discloses
beginning and end triggers for an execution interval for a payload and
associating those triggers with trajectory events (id. at 9).
The Examiner disagrees with these contentions. Regarding Nichols,
the Examiner submits that the disclosed temporal, location, and posture
constraints are "trajectory events." Ans. 4--5. The Examiner further
3
Appeal2018-000923
Application 14/457,084
submits, "[t]rajectory events, as claimed, is a very broad phrase
encompassing virtually any event regarding the UA V while in use." Id. at 6.
We note Appellant's Specification describes that "trajectory events"
"comprise trajectory information of the aircraft." See Spec. 4, 11. 15-16.
The trajectory events may be defined, for example, by "a predefined
location." See id. at 5, 11. 3-8. Appellant's contentions do not persuade us
that Nichols fails to tie the "image acquisition time" to a trajectory event of
an aircraft, such as "a predefined location." Br. 8. As explained by the
Examiner, in Nichols, the constraints "act as a trigger in an execution
interval designed to gather images of one of a plurality of targets," and
"when the posture, location, mechanical orientation of the sensor, and timing
of [the] UA Vis correct, the selected sensor will be triggered, and at least
one image will be taken of the target." Ans. 4--5.
Feigh discloses:
In an exemplary embodiment, the flight plan generation
process 400 continues by identifying any timing constraints for
the flight plan (task 404). For example, the flight plan generation
process 400 may be configured to a user to identify one or more
timing constraints for each identified surveillance target. For
example, the user may designate that a first surveillance target
(e.g., object 304) should be observed and/or viewed at a specified
time or within a specified time period (e.g., "before 10:00 AM"
or "between 10:00 AM and 10:05 AM'').
Feigh ,r 33 (emphasis added). Appellant contends that the described
temporal constraints (e.g., "between 10:00AM and 10:05 AM") do not
correspond to an execution interval with a beginning trigger and an end
trigger, but instead, Feigh uses these time constraints (image viewing times)
to generate a flight plan and not to set beginning and end triggers. Br. 9.
4
Appeal2018-000923
Application 14/457,084
The Examiner responds:
Given the broadest reasonable definition of the contested
triggers and interval as claimed, Feigh clearly teaches an
execution interval (10:00-10:05 AM, or borders of a defined
geographical region) with a beginning trigger (10:00 AM, or
beginning of region to be imaged) and an end trigger (10:05AM,
or end of region to be imaged) in which a target is to be imaged.
Ans. 5 ( emphasis added).
Appellant's Specification describes, "[t]he execution interval defines
the interval of the CPS by initial and end triggers that may be defined for
each flight segment of the aircraft with the payload on-board or defined for
any other aircraft state variable." Spec. 12, 11. 10-15. Regarding the terms
"beginning trigger" and "end trigger," the Specification describes, for
example, "a fixed trigger (34) refers to a specified time instant for starting or
ending an execution interval." Id. at 12, 11. 18-20. The Specification also
describes, for example, a "floating trigger (35) depends upon an aircraft state
variable such as speed or altitude reaching a certain value to cause an
execution interval to start or end." Id. at 12, 11. 20-22. Accordingly, the
Specification does not appear to limit the "beginning trigger" or "end
trigger" to a specified starting time or ending time in an execution interval,
or to a specific "aircraft state variable."
Regarding the claimed method, claim 1 does not recite that the
beginning trigger or the ending trigger is a specific type of trigger. In that
regard, the Examiner notes that the claimed triggers do not specifically recite
"a turning on/off of a payload" or "require activation/deactivation of the
payload." Ans. 6.
Further, it is reasonable to interpret "within a specified time period" in
Feigh as disclosing, or suggesting, to both begin and end observing and/or
5
Appeal2018-000923
Application 14/457,084
viewing of a surveillance target "between 10:00 AM and 10:05 AM."
Appellant does not apprise us of any error in the Examiner's position that
Feigh teaches an execution interval of 10:00 AM to 10:05 AM, or "borders
of a defined geographical region," where the execution interval has "a
beginning trigger (10: 00 AM, or beginning of region to be imaged) and an
end trigger (10:05AM, or end of region to be imaged) in which a target is to
be imaged." Ans. 5. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant that
Feigh fails to disclose, or suggest, an "execution interval" having a
"beginning trigger" and an "end trigger," as claimed.
Additionally, the Examiner submits that "[a]ny disclosure that defines
an execution interval with a beginning and an end associated with a payload
command and trajectory events teaches the contested elements of claim 1"
and "Feigh teaches a payload is commanded over a defined interval to
surveil a target or region." Ans. 6. Appellant's contentions do not persuade
us that the applied combination fails to tie the "specified time period" during
which a surveillance target is observed and/or viewed to a trajectory event of
an aircraft, for example, the aircraft's location. Thus, we are not apprised of
error in the Examiner's determination that the combination meets the claim
limitation of "the beginning trigger and the end trigger are further associated
with at least one of the plurality of trajectory events."
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 5-12, and 16-
26, which are not separately argued, as unpatentable over Nichols and Feigh.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5-12, and 16-26.
6
Appeal2018-000923
Application 14/457,084
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7