Ex Parte Schwartz et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 17, 2019

15252994 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/252,994 08/31/2016 60476 7590 04/19/2019 PA TENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Samantha Schwartz 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. 16-0565-US-NP (24691-906) CONFIRMATION NO. 1681 EXAMINER GIRMA, FEKADESELASS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2019 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): USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMANTHA SCHWARTZ and KA TIE M. REID Appeal2018-006723 Application 15/252,994 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. Appellants disclose an aircraft pilot display system and method for use by a pilot of an aircraft during takeoff (Title; Spec. ,r 1; Abstract). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company (App. Br. 1). Appeal2018-006723 Application 15/252,994 Appellants claim a yaw feedback system that displays a yaw difference to the pilot during takeoff (Spec. ,r,r 1, 4---6). Claim 1 is exemplary, and is reproduced below with bracketed lettering and emphases added to the disputed portions of the claim: 1. A yaw feedback system ( 605) for use by a pilot of an aircraft (100) during takeoff, comprising: [A] a processor (615) configured to determine a yaw difference between a current track of the aircraft and a runway centerline (106); a runway centerline indicator (210) configured to virtually extend a runway visual range "RVR" for a pilot of the aircraft; and [BJ a yaw feedback indicator (650) coupled to the processor and configured to prompt the pilot for a yaw input to compensate for the yaw difference, and to convey, to the pilot, a magnitude and a direction of the yaw difference. 2 We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-13) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-5) that the Examiner's rejections of: 2 Appellants amended claims 1 and 15 to include the recited language, "and to convey, to the pilot, a magnitude and a direction of the yaw difference," and claim 8 to include the language "the yaw feedback indicator configured to convey, to the pilot, a magnitude and a direction of the yaw difference" (Appellants' Amendment filed Aug. 8, 2017, pp. 2--4). The original Drawings (Figs. 4, 5) and Specification (Spec. ,r,r 11, 12) show and describe the display of a magnitude and direction needed to compensate or overcome the determined yaw difference, not a display of the actual ( and claimed) determined yaw difference. Upon further examination, the Examiner should consider whether there is any written description issue under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a) in this regard. 2 Appeal2018-006723 Application 15/252,994 (i) claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ganguli, et. al. (US 8,560,149 Bl; issued Oct. 15, 2013) (hereinafter, "Ganguli") (Final Act. 2-8); (ii) claims 3 and 12 as being unpatentable over Ganguli and Colby (US 2015/0169273 Al; published Jun. 18, 2015) (Final Act. 9); (iii) claims 4 and 20 as being unpatentable over Ganguli and Saverio (US 4,006,632; issued Feb. 8, 1977) (Final Act. 10-11); and (iv) claim 14 as being unpatentable over Ganguli and Kneuper et al., (US 2016/0176541 Al; published Jun. 23, 2016) (hereinafter, "Kneuper") (Final Act. 11-12) are in error, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-14). Definition of Yaw Appellants set forth discussion (see App. Br. 2) regarding the definition of"yaw." According to Appellants, "[t]he three ax[e]s of aircraft rotation are the yaw axis, the pitch axis, and the roll axis. The yaw axis is drawn vertically through the aircraft's center-of-gravity, and rotation about the yaw axis is simply referred to as yaw" (App. Br. 2). According to this description, and as further evidenced by the NASA dictionary definition of yaw ("The rotational or oscillatory movement of an aircraft, rocket, or the like about a vertical axis[.]"), 3 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand "yaw" or "yaw difference" to be an angle or an amount of rotation about a vertical axis. Further provided is an example showing the definition of "yaw" as illustrated by Vishnu G Nair et al., Aircraft Yaw 3 See https://erjsc.nasa.gov/seh/y.htm1, last visited April 9, 2019. 3 Appeal2018-006723 Application 15/252,994 Control System using LQR and Fuzzy Logic Controller, International Journal of Computer Applications, reproduced below. 4 Rudder Elevator Len Aileron z X ' International Journal of Computer Applications Figure 1 showing yaw. Limitation [A] Appellants argue (App. Br. 7-8) that Ganguli does not teach or disclose a processor configured to determine a yaw difference between a current track of the aircraft and a runway centerline (see, e.g., limitation [A] recited in claim 1 ). With respect to the interpretation of "yaw difference," we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 9-10) that Ganguli determines or computes a yaw difference as the "ground track angle (x(t))" (col. 5, 11. 66- 67; see also Fig. 4). 4 https ://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/7 cbf; 5a3 cc l 9c05beaf8dfl 9f24e8 80c23 c5 3 0 131.pdf, last visited April 9, 2019; see also International Journal of Computer Applications. 4 Appeal2018-006723 Application 15/252,994 Ganguli discloses that tracking estimator 310 computes a heading error 330 at a look ahead distance 332 based on the "travel of aircraft 250 at a ground track angle x(t) with respect to the virtual runway centerline 235, and velocity (shown as V(t)), and the distance to the look ahead point (shown as xLA)" ( col. 5, 1. 61---col. 6, 1. 2; see also Fig. 4). Therefore, in order to compute the heading error 330, Ganguli must necessarily determine the value of the ground track angle x(t), i.e., yaw difference. However, Appellants' argument with respect to claim limitation [A] is not persuasive because Ganguli's ground track angle (x(t)) represents the "yaw difference between a current track of the aircraft and a runway centerline," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Because the ground track angle (x(t)), and then the heading error (330) (Fig. 5A), are computed by a processor (see Ganguli Fig. 5A, 310), we agree with the Examiner's finding that Ganguli teaches or suggests determining a yaw difference as recited in limitation [A] of claim 1, and as similarly recited in claims 8 and 15. Limitation [BJ Appellants argue (App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 1-5) that Ganguli fails to teach a yaw feedback indicator for an aircraft that conveys, to a pilot, a magnitude and direction of a yaw difference computed as a difference between a current track of the aircraft and a runway centerline (see, e.g., limitation [BJ recited in claim 1 ). We agree. Specifically, although Ganguli discloses visually displaying "total lateral displacement (340)" and "centerline tracking feedback (350)" (Fig. 5A), which are represented on a "display (520)" as "look-ahead symbol (532)" (Fig. 5B), we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4) that Ganguli is silent as to "convey[ing] a magnitude and direction of a yaw 5 Appeal2018-006723 Application 15/252,994 difference, which is an angle computed between a track of the aircraft and the runway centerline" (App. Br. 8-9). Furthermore, although Ganguli discloses "maximum takeoff deviation criteria" (see col. 8, 11. 11-32), we agree with Appellants (see Reply Br. 2) that the deviation criteria described are calculated in meters/distance, not yaw, which would be expressed as an angle in degrees ( or radians). Although Ganguli (Fig. 5A) discloses calculating a heading error (330) based on a ground track angle (x(t)) (which is equivalent to the recited yaw difference), and thus the heading error (330) is proportional to or based at least in part on a "yaw" or "yaw difference," these values only contribute to the computed lateral look-ahead error (340), which is resultantly displayed as look-ahead symbol (532) (see col. 5, 1. 47---col. 6, 1. 20). In other words, the yaw difference itself is not displayed or fed back to the pilot through the cockpit display 170. 5 In addition, we agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 11) that Ganguli computes and displays a lateral look ahead error (340) as a look-ahead symbol (532) even if the calculated heading error (330) and ground track angle (x(t)) are equal to zero. Therefore, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 11) that Ganguli fails to teach or suggest conveying a magnitude and direction of a yaw difference to a pilot, as set forth in claims 1, 8, and 15. 5 Ganguli uses the ground track angle x(t) to computer the heading error 330 and then the total lateral look-ahead error 340, and finally the centerline tracking feedback signal 350 (see col. 5, 1. 61---col. 6, 1. 11). Only the centerline tracking feedback signal 350 is "used to provide visual feedback for the pilot via cockpit display 170" ( col. 6, 11. 13-14 ). 6 Appeal2018-006723 Application 15/252,994 In this light, we agree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7-12) that Ganguli fails to teach or suggest a yaw feedback indicator, for an aircraft, that conveys, to a pilot, a magnitude and direction of a yaw difference computed as a difference between a current track of the aircraft and a runway centerline, as set forth in each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner has not properly established factual determinations and articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for claims 1, 8, and 15, resulting in a failure to establish prima facie obviousness. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 over the base reference of Ganguli. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting (i) claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13, and 15-19 over Ganguli alone; (ii) claims 3 and 12 over the combination of Ganguli and Colby; (iii) claims 4 and 20 over the combination of Ganguli and Saverio; and (iv) claim 14 over the combination of Ganguli and Kneuper. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20. REVERSED 7