HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2022

2021003235 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2022)

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. 15/594,948 05/15/2017 Jan Bilek H0057116 (002.7010) 1838 89955 7590 03/24/2022 HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL Intellectual Property Services Group 855 S. Mint Street Charlotte, NC 28202 EXAMINER RASTOVSKI, CATHERINE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2862 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2022 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): DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com honeywell@lkglobal.com patentservices-us@honeywell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAN BILEK, ZDENEK EICHLER, MELISSA ZIARNICK, ANUP RAJE, PAMELA MANNON, DON MOLDENHAUER, and RATAN KHATWA Appeal 2021-003235 Application 15/594,948 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honeywell International Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003235 Application 15/594,948 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (text in bold for emphasis): 1. A display device for receiving and processing weather data and flight plan data, comprising: a vertical situation display, configured to display a vertical profile of weather data along a commanded flight plan; an input unit, configured to receive an input value from an operator, wherein the input value is a flight altitude value and a size of an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude range above and below the flight altitude value; a processor in operable communication with the vertical situation display and the input unit, the processor configured to: receive flight plan data containing at least the commanded flight plan of an aircraft; receive weather data containing at least positional information and weather characteristics belonging to said positional information; determine, based on the positional information of the weather data, which weather characteristics are located within the altitude window that corresponds to the altitude range above and below the flight altitude value; instruct the vertical situation display to display a vertical profile of those weather data which are located within the altitude window that corresponds to the altitude range above and below the flight altitude value; instruct the vertical situation display to additionally display at least one element of the group consisting of the elements: strategic information weather, uplink weather, weather information from external weather data provider, onboard weather radar information, notice to airmen, aeronautical information service data, terminal area forecast, air-traffic related information; Appeal 2021-003235 Application 15/594,948 3 determine continuous areas that are defined by a combination of at least two of vector shape, raster data, lines, symbols, and text; and instruct the vertical situation display to display the at least one element based on these continuous areas, wherein the altitude window that corresponds to the altitude range above and below the flight altitude value is smaller than a maximum vertical range between take-off and maximum flight altitude of an aircraft. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Szeto et al. (“Szeto”) US 6,839,018 B2 Jan. 4, 2005 Krupansky et al. (“Krupansky”) US 2011/0301842 A1 Dec. 8, 2011 Oransky et al. (“Oransky”) US 9,244,167 B1 Jan. 26, 2016 Stulken et al. (“Stulken”) US 2016/0041305 A1 Feb. 11, 2016 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oransky in view of Krupansky, Stulken, and Szeto. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify Appeal 2021-003235 Application 15/594,948 4 the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). Upon review of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position in the record. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection on appeal for essentially the reasons set forth in the record by Appellant, and add the following for emphasis. We refer to pages 2-10 of the Final Office Action regarding the Examiner’s statement of the rejection. Therein, the Examiner relies upon Oransky in view of Krupansky, and further in view of Stulken and Szeto, for the reasons stated therein. The Examiner recognizes that Oransky and Krupansky do not explicitly teach, inter alia, an input value from an operator wherein the input value is a size of an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude range above and below the flight altitude value, as recited in the claims. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner relies upon Stulken for this claim element, and states: Stulken teaches wherein the input value is a size of an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude range (e.g. “A pilot can select products and altitude ranges (i.e. corresponding to altitude window) for weather data to be displayed “, see abstract and paragraph [0022]) above and below the flight altitude value (e.g. “In the exemplary weather scenario 300, the weather region 310 includes an upper portion 312 that is at or above the flight path 304 of the aircraft 302. The weather region 310 also includes a lower portion 314 that is below the flight path 304 of the aircraft’, see paragraph [0020], see also paragraph [0022]), determine which weather characteristics are located within the altitude window (e.g. “The system can also include a first computer processor that is programmed to separate the received weather data into weather data layers for a plurality of ranges of altitude “, see paragraph [0006]), Appeal 2021-003235 Application 15/594,948 5 instruct the display to display those weather data which are located within the altitude window (e.g. “The pilot inputs 110 can include controls that a pilot may use to select a range of altitudes for which he wishes to display weather information and also to select various weather products the pilot wishes to display “, see paragraph [0022]) that corresponds to the altitude range above and below the input flight altitude value (e.g. paragraph [0022] describes that the pilot can choose [chose] various altitude ranges that include altitudes below and above the flight altitude value). Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have included the features taught by Stulken into Oransky and Krupansky for the purpose of displaying pertinent weather information and hazards to a user so that safe flight operations can occur. Final Act. 8. The Examiner’s reliance upon Szeto for other claim elements is set forth on page 8 of the Final Office Action. Appellant argues, inter alia, that none of the applied references teach the subject matter of having an input unit, configured to receive an input value from an operator “wherein the input value is a flight altitude value and a size of an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude range above and below the flight altitude value.” Appeal Br. 11-14. In response, the Examiner states: Stulken teaches wherein the input value is a size of an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude range since Stulken teaches that a pilot can select altitude ranges (i.e. an altitude window) for the display of weather data (e.g. see Stulken paragraph [0022]) and that the window can extend to above and below the flight altitude values (e.g. see Stulken paragraphs [0020] and [0022]). The examiner notes that although Stulken teaches a horizontal display in Fig. 7A and 7B, Stulken does allow for the selection of vertical ranges for the presentation of data (e.g. see items Appeal 2021-003235 Application 15/594,948 6 716 and 718 in Fig. 7A which enable a user to select the altitude range for desired weather data to be displayed, see also paragraph [0022)). In reply, Appellant reiterates that there is no teaching that the input value supplied by an operator via the input unit is a flight altitude value and a size of an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude range above and below the flight altitude value. Reply Br. 4. Appellant explains that, rather, each of the applied references discloses selecting an entire altitude range (i.e., upper and lower altitude values). Appellant explains that this is not the same as receiving an input value, wherein the input value is a flight altitude value and a size of an altitude window that corresponds to an altitude range above and below the flight altitude value as claimed. Id. We are persuaded by this line of argument, and notably, the Examiner’s position does not adequately address this point made by Appellant in the record. See Answer, generally. Rather, the Examiner refers to certain teachings in Stulken (discussed, supra) which teach selecting a range of altitudes (e.g., Stulken, ¶ 22 ). In contrast, as described in Appellant’s Specification (¶¶ 45-48), the input is a selected altitude value, for example as represented by Y-axis 46 of vertical display 140 of Figure 1. In this way, a pilot can adjust the selected altitude that will be the center of the vertical axis. Spec. ¶ 45. In view of the above, we reverse the rejection. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision. Appeal 2021-003235 Application 15/594,948 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19 103 Oransky Krupansky, Stulken, Szeto 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19 REVERSED