Goodrich Lighting Systems GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 9, 2021

2020006740 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2021)

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. 14/825,917 08/13/2015 ANDRE HESSLING VON HEIMENDAHL 76841US01 8587 87521 7590 08/09/2021 Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER CARTER, WILLIAM JOSEPH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2875 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/09/2021 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDRE HESSLING VON HEIMENDAHL, FRANZ-JOSEF BEERMANN, CHRISTIAN SCHOEN, SASCHA LUEDER, and ANIL KUMAR JHA Appeal 2020-006740 Application 14/825,917 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application 14/825,917 filed Aug. 13, 2015 (“the ’917 App.”); the Final Office Action dated Oct. 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 30, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated July 28, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 28, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-006740 Application 14/825,917 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, and 14. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to aircraft beacon lights. Spec. ¶ 2. According to Appellant, aircraft beacon lights generally are provided to alert the ground personnel that the aircraft engines are running, and must be turned on whenever the engines are on. Id. Aircraft beacon lights are also a safety warning to other persons on the airfield, such as other pilots or drivers of airport vehicles, indicating that the aircraft is operational and might move. Id. Such lights are sometimes also referred to as anti-collision beacon lights. Id. Aircraft beacon lights emit light in a red color and are entirely separated from the white anti-collision lighting of the aircraft, whose light units are commonly referred to merely as anti-collision lights. Id. The Appellant states that in a prior art arrangement of beacon lights on an aircraft, the aircraft is equipped with two beacon lights, one of which is disposed on the top of the aircraft fuselage and one of which is placed on the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. Spec. ¶ 3. The top beacon light is placed at a position along the length of the aircraft fuselage where the wings have their roots, and emits lights in a 360° angle. Id. The bottom beacon light is 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Goodrich Lighting Systems GMBH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006740 Application 14/825,917 3 placed on the bottom of the aircraft fuselage at its tail, and emits light in a 360° angle. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claim Appendix of the Appeal Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. An aircraft comprising: a set of aircraft beacon light units, wherein each of the set of aircraft beacon light units has an operating light emission distribution that has a first light emission opening angle of at least 150° in a first cross- sectional plane, and a second light emission opening angle of at most 180° in a second cross-sectional plane orthogonal to the first cross-sectional plane, wherein each of the set of aircraft beacon light units is mounted to the aircraft with the first cross-sectional plane being oriented in a vertical direction and the second cross-sectional plane being oriented in a horizontal direction, wherein the first light emission opening angle of each of the set of aircraft beacon light units extends at least 75° both above and below the second cross-sectional plane, wherein the second light emission opening angles of the set of aircraft beacon light units add up to at least 360°, such that a 360° illumination in the horizontal plane of the aircraft is possible via the set of aircraft beacon light units, wherein each of the set of aircraft beacon light units is configured to emit flashes of aviation red light, and wherein the set of aircraft beacon light units comprises: a right wing tip aircraft beacon light unit and a left wing tip aircraft beacon light unit, with the second light emission opening angle of each of the right wing tip aircraft beacon light unit and the left wing tip aircraft beacon light unit being between 90° and 140°, and Appeal 2020-006740 Application 14/825,917 4 at least one tail aircraft beacon light unit, with a total second light emission opening angle of the at least one tail aircraft beacon light unit being between 100° and 180°, wherein each of the right wing tip aircraft beacon light unit, the left wing tip aircraft beacon light unit, and the at least one tail aircraft beacon light unit is a combined aircraft beacon light and anti-collision light unit, configured to emit flashes of aviation red light and configured to emit flashes of white light. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Calvin et al. (“Calvin”) US 2011/0122635 A1 May 26, 2011 Peck US 2014/0185280 A1 July 3, 2014 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Calvin in view of Peck. Final Act. 3–6. OPINION Appellant only argues the patentability of claim 1, making no separate argument for patentability of claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13, and 14. Appeal Br. 3– 11. Therefore, we limit our analysis to claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner interprets “beacon” as a warning light, and finds that Calvin explicitly teaches a warning light. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that “beacon” does not require color, location, structure, or flashing. Id. The Examiner finds that Calvin teaches the aircraft beacon light units of claim 1 with the exception of “wherein a red light is aviation red and having at least one red light source for emitting flashes of white light.” Final Act. 4. The Appeal 2020-006740 Application 14/825,917 5 Examiner relies on Peck as teaching aircraft beacon light units that emit flashes of aviation red light. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the red light of Peck in Calvin’s beacon/strobe light in order to provide a light output appropriate for nighttime use. Id. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the red flashing beacon light system of an aircraft is separate from the other lighting systems of the aircraft. Appeal Br. 4. More specifically, Appellant argues that the red flashing beacon light system is separate from the green, red, and white position lights providing continuous illumination, and separate from white anti-collision strobe lights. Id. According to Appellant, Calvin fails to teach red flashing lights, red strobe lights, or beacon lights in any way. Id. Appellant argues that Calvin concerns colored (green and red) navigation lights, white position lights, and white strobe lights. Id. at 3. The outcome here depends on the construction of “beacon” in the claimed phrase “aircraft beacon light.” The Examiner relies on a dictionary meaning of “beacon,” citing to the Cambridge Dictionary, which defines “beacon” as “a light that acts as a signal or warning.” Ans. 4. Appellant, in contrast, argues that “beacon light” has a well-defined meaning in the field of aircraft lighting, and cites to the ’917 Application and an evidentiary reference (Machi3) submitted during prosecution and in the Evidence Appendix to the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 2–3. 3 Appellant submitted US 7,645,053 B2 issued Jan. 12, 2010 to Machi et al. (“Machi”), with the June 6, 2018 Amendment and Response to Office Action. Appeal 2020-006740 Application 14/825,917 6 “It is a well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee is free to be his or her own lexicographer, and thus may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings.” Hormone Res. Found., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citation omitted). While Appellant is free to redefine terms in the Specification, any such novel definitions must be clearly indicated. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[W]ords in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, [but] a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.”). “[A] claim term may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition” and “[e]ven when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1320–21 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here, the Specification states Aircraft beacon lights are in general provided for alerting the ground personnel that the aircraft engines are running and have to be turned on whenever the engines are on. They are also a safety warning to other persons on the airfield, indicating that the aircraft is operational and might move. For example, other pilots or drivers of all kinds of airport vehicles can determine if an aircraft is ready to move and if its movement may cause collisions on the airfield. For this reason, beacon lights are sometimes also referred to as anti-collision beacon lights. They emit light in a red color and are entirely separated from the white anti-collision lighting of the aircraft, whose light units are commonly referred to merely as anti-collision lights. Appeal 2020-006740 Application 14/825,917 7 Spec. ¶ 2. Therefore, Appellant provides a special definition for “aircraft beacon lights,” distinguishing them as emitting red light and not being white anti-collision lights. The Examiner finds that “warning,” “beacon,” and “anti-collision” can be used interchangeably to refer to red fuselage-mounted lights and white wingtip and tail lights. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that “‘beacon’ simply requires a light that acts as a warning,” and that it is reasonable to interpret the warning lights of Calvin as beacons. Id. at 4. We disagree. “Aircraft beacon lights” has a specific meaning in claim 1, as set forth in the foregoing quote from the Specification. Spec. ¶ 2. Therefore, the Examiner’s conflation of “beacon” with Calvin’s disclosure of warning lights is improper. The Examiner relies on Calvin’s disclosure of warning lights as teaching the aircraft beacon lights of claim 1. However, the aircraft beacon lights of claim 1 do not read on Calvin’s strobe lights, position lights, or colored navigation lights. See Calvin ¶ 6. In addition, we agree with Appellant that Peck does not concern external aircraft lighting. See Appeal Br. 7. Peck discloses an obstruction lighting system for an elevated structure, such as a tower. Peck Abstr. ¶ 1. Peck is not “drawn to aircraft beacon lights,” as the Examiner finds incorrectly. See Final Act. 4. Appellant shows reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is obvious over Calvin in view of Peck. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13, 14. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. More specifically, Appeal 2020-006740 Application 14/825,917 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 9, 10, 13, 14 103 Calvin, Peck 1–7, 9, 10, 13, 14 REVERSED