Ex Parte Schoonveld et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 3, 2017

13719869 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
13/719,869 12/19/2012 Steve John Schoonveld 259099/71966-0153 7215
91753 7590 01/05/2017
General Electric Company
Global Patent Operation-Aviation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
SOOD, ANSHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/05/2017 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE JOHN SCHOONVELD and
STEPHANE LAURENT PETTER
Appeal 2015-002729
Application 13/719,869
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Steve John Schoonveld and Stephane Laurent Petter (“Appellants”)
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision
rejecting claims 2—18.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is GE Aviation Systems
Limited. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002729
Application 13/719,869
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
17. A method of providing real-time flight data to an aircraft,
the method comprising:
flying a first aircraft along a flight path;
automatically sensing real-time flight data from at least
one sensor located on the first aircraft as the first aircraft is flown
along the flight path; and
automatically transmitting at least a portion of the real­
time flight data directly to a second aircraft flying at least a
portion of the flight path at a time later than the first aircraft.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 2—15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bailey (EP 2,290,636 Al, pub. Mar. 2, 2011).
2) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bailey.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 2—15, 17, and 18 as a group.
Appeal Br. 4. We select claim 17 as representative and claims 2—15 and 18
stand or fall with claim 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Bailey discloses all the limitations of claim
17. Final Act. 4 (citing Bailey H 53, 56, 59, 71, 73, 75, 77-78, 98).
Appellants first contend that Bailey does not disclose the limitation
“automatically sensing real-time flight data from at least one sensor located
on the first aircraft.” Appeal Br. 4, 7—8. Appellants argue that Bailey
2
Appeal 2015-002729
Application 13/719,869
discloses that dynamic weather band processor 402 receives information
from “a number of databases” and not from at least one sensor located on
the aircraft. Id. at 6, 8 (citing Bailey 161). Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s reliance on Paragraph 59 of Bailey as disclosing “automatically
sensing real-time flight data” is erroneous. Id. at 8. Appellants argue that
Bailey’s dynamic weather band processor 402 does not automatically sense
information from a sensor but “continually evaluates information received in
order to dynamically select weather for a flight plan.” Id. (emphasis added)
(quoting Bailey 1 59). Appellants next contend that because Bailey does
not disclose “automatically sensing real-time flight data from at least one
sensor located on the first aircraft,” it “is impossible for Bailey ’636 to
automatically transmit^ at least a portion of the real time flight data to a
second aircraft.” Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds that Bailey discloses that real time-flight data,
i.e., air pressure, is “sensed by a sensor.” Ans. 2 (citing Bailey 1 68). The
Examiner maintains the position that Bailey discloses transmitting “weather
data from one aircraft to another on the same flight path.” Id. at 4 (citing
Bailey 77—78). The Examiner notes that Bailey discloses that dynamic
weather band processor 402 is an example of weather selection system 306,
that weather band processor 402 may be located on the aircraft, and that an
automatic trigger “reinitializes the process of subscribing to the weather
band selection system.” Id. at 3 (citing Bailey 56—57). The Examiner
asserts that this supports the finding that Bailey discloses automatically
transmitting real-time flight data from the first aircraft to the second aircraft.
Id. at 3^4. For the following reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.
3
Appeal 2015-002729
Application 13/719,869
Bailey discloses “a method and apparatus for providing weather
information for a trajectory of an aircraft.” Bailey 12. Bailey discloses the
method and apparatus in the context of, inter alia, two aircraft 504 and 506
traveling along flight trajectory 502 at different times. Id. 177, Fig. 5.
Bailey discloses that
[wjhen aircraft 506 follows trajectory 502 along flight
path 500 at a later time than aircraft 504, aircraft 506 may receive
the benefit of the weather information detected by aircraft
504 .... The current weather detected by aircraft 506 may also
be used to update ... the weather detected earlier in time by
aircraft 504.
Id. 178. Bailey also discloses that an aircraft executing maneuvers such as
turning, climbing, or descending may affect certain parameters because of
the "sensor position during the maneuver.” Id. 1 68 (emphasis added).
Bailey specifically discloses that “air pressure” is one parameter that may be
“incorrectly measured or sensed” during such maneuvers. Id. Bailey
discloses that it “analyzes the state of the aircraft at the time information was
obtained to determine the integrity of the information” obtained from the
pressure sensor. Id.
Appellants’ Specification describes that “one or more sensors 26 may
be capable of sensing and providing environmental and aircraft data.” Spec.
113. Among the sensed data is weather data including “pressure” and “data
from all substantial aircraft systems.” Id. The aircraft data alternately “may
be obtained from the aircraft systems 20.” Id. Similarly, paragraph 68 of
Bailey specifically discloses sensing air pressure at the time of aircraft
maneuvers “to determine the integrity of the information” from the sensors.
Bailey, thus, discloses at least one sensor, an air pressure sensor, located on
the aircraft. Bailey 1 68. Air pressure is sensed during an aircraft maneuver
4
Appeal 2015-002729
Application 13/719,869
or, in other words, in “real-time,” as claimed. The aircraft state, i.e., turning,
climbing, etc., must be sensed or otherwise obtained from aircraft systems so
it can be analyzed prior “to determin[ing] the integrity of the [pressure]
information.” Id. Bailey, therefore, discloses sensing or obtaining aircraft
state data at the time the air pressure is sensed. Appellants do not provide
persuasive argument or point to any evidence in Bailey that the sensing of
air pressure, the sensing or determination of whether the airplane is
executing a maneuver, and the subsequent determination of the integrity of
the information based on the sensed pressure information is not performed
automatically. We, thus, are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that
Bailey does not disclose automatically sensing real-time flight data from at
least one sensor located on the first aircraft.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ second contention that, in
the absence of automatically sensing real-time flight data from at least one
sensor, it is impossible for Bailey to disclose automatically transmitting at
least a portion of the real time flight data directly to a second aircraft,
because we above determine that Bailey does disclose the recited
automatically sensing real-time flight data from at least one sensor. In
addition, we note that weather band processor 402 may be located on the
aircraft thus allowing for direct transmission of real-time flight data from the
first aircraft to the second aircraft (Bailey ^fl[ 56—57) and Appellants have not
directed us to any disclosure in Bailey indicating that sensed air pressure or
aircraft state data due to aircraft maneuvers is not automatically transmitted
from aircraft 504 to aircraft 506 when aircraft 506 receives the benefit of
weather information detected by aircraft 504.
5
Appeal 2015-002729
Application 13/719,869
Appellants, thus, have not apprised us of error in the rejection of claim
17. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Bailey. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2—15 and
18 which fall with claim 17.
Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claim 16 as unpatentable over Bailey. Final
Act. 8. Claim 16, which depends from claim 17, recites “wherein the real­
time flight data has an expiration time of less than 8 hours.” Appeal Br. 13
(Claims App.). The Examiner determines that Bailey does not expressly
disclose this limitation but concludes the “claimed expiration time would
have been an obvious matter of design choice.” Final Act. 8. Appellants do
not dispute the Examiner’s conclusion regarding claim 16 but argue that the
Examiner fails to state a prima facie case of obviousness for the same
reasons argued in connection with claim 17, which we determine to be
unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 9-10. We, thus, sustain the rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons stated in connection with
claim 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2—18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6