John Wokurka et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2020

2019002499 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2020)

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.
14/599,766 01/19/2015 John Wokurka 14-1108-US-NP 7978
63759 7590 08/28/2020
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
BULLINGTON, ROBERT P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2020 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN WOKURKA, TIM STUMPF,
ELIZABETH MARIE BIDDLE, and CLIFFORD B. SOWADSKI
Appeal 2019-002499
Application 14/599,766
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s July 2, 2018 Non-Final Action rejecting claims 1–20. See Non-
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002499
Application 14/599,766

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an instructional assessment system for a
vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus that comprises:
a display system, in a vehicle, configured to provide a
guidance for a group of input controls;
a processor that comprises:
an assessment system, removably attached to the vehicle,
such that the assessment system comprises code specially
programmed to:
communicate with the display system;
receive, from sensors in a hardware system in the
vehicle, a directional control command and real-time
information of a performance of the vehicle during an
operation of the vehicle, such that the hardware system
comprises at least one of: an environmental control
system, a collision avoidance system, and a biometric
sensor system for a vehicle operator;
determine, based upon an assessment definition, the
real-time information and the directional control
command, a performance of the operation; and
generate, based upon an event generation based upon
a rule in an assessment definition, that looks for the real-
time information, in an event generator, a corrective
action to improve the performance of the operation of the
vehicle during the operation;
a feedback generator configured to transform the corrective
action for at least one of: a speed, a heading, a position, an
attitude, an altitude, an engine control setting, a communication
systems setting, a setting for the hardware system, of the vehicle,
to the guidance for the vehicle to perform the corrective action,
such that the guidance forms a graphical image; and
a platform variable mapping configured to format the
graphical image as a graphical indicium overlaid on a display, of
the real-time information of the performance of the vehicle
during the operation of the vehicle, on the display system, such
Appeal 2019-002499
Application 14/599,766

3
that the display simultaneously presents the attitude, the speed,
and the altitude of the vehicle.
(Claim App. 26, 27).
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Riley US 2003/0206119 A1 Nov. 6, 2003
Batcheller US 2011/0171611 A1 July 14, 2011
Shaw US 2015/0269860 A1 Sep. 24, 2015
REJECTION
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–20 103 Shaw, Batcheller, Riley
OPINION
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Shaw teaches the limitations in
independent claim 1 (and the “substantially similar limitations in claim 11”)
drawn to a “graphical image” that is formatted as a “graphical indicium” of a
“guidance,” i.e., a “corrective action” to improve the performance of a
vehicle operation, the graphical indicium being “overlaid on a display” that
“simultaneously presents the attitude, the speed, and the altitude of the
vehicle.” Non-Final Act. 3, 6–7 (citing Shaw ¶¶ 73, 91, Figs. 1, 2); Ans. 20–
21 (citing Shaw ¶ 91, Fig. 3).2
Paragraph 91 describes an example use of Shaw’s system in which a
novice pilot is approaching and landing a high-performance aircraft on an
aircraft carrier. Id. “During the later stages of this maneuver, the pilot

2 Appellant does not appear to dispute that claim 11 is “substantially similar”
(Non-Final Act. 3) to claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, our discussion of
claim 1 applies with equal force to claim 11.
Appeal 2019-002499
Application 14/599,766

4
begins pulling back the throttle input controller to slow the aircraft in
preparation for a landing while also controlling the heading, altitude and
attitude of the aircraft to keep it aloft and aligned with the carrier deck.” Id.
The pilot’s real-time throttle position is compared with a “preferred” throttle
position, based on flights flown by more experienced pilots; the deviation
between actual and preferred throttle positions is tracked over time and
displayed to the pilot as a graph. Id. ¶ 91, Fig. 3. The pilot also receives a
display of a numerical value 210 “corresponding to the deviation,” and an
upwardly or downwardly directed arrow 216, 218 “to provide a quickly
observable visual indicator to the pilot as to the direction the input
controller, in this case the throttle position controller, should be moved to
reduce the deviation.” Id. ¶ 73, Fig. 2.
Appellant responds that Shaw does not teach “a machine that
determines a corrective action,” and that Shaw’s “teaching that the pilot
must generate ‘the direction the input controller should be moved’ actually
teaches away from ‘a feedback generator configured to transform the
corrective action . . . such that the guidance forms a graphical image.”
Appeal Br. 12–13.
We disagree. Shaw teaches determining a corrective action because it
teaches comparing actual input controller position with a preferred input
controller position to determine a “deviation” between the two, which the
pilot acts to reduce. Shaw ¶¶ 73, 91. Shaw also teaches transforming the
corrective action to form a graphic image/graphical indicia because the
deviation determined by Shaw is displayed as: (1) graphs of actual
controller position versus preferred controller position over time; (2) a
numerical value corresponding to the determined deviation; and (3)
Appeal 2019-002499
Application 14/599,766

5
upwardly or downwardly directed arrows that “provide a quickly observable
visual indicator to the pilot as to the direction the input controller . . . should
be moved.” Shaw ¶¶ 73, 91, Figs. 2, 3.
Appellant also disputes that Shaw teaches that the graphical indicium
is “overlaid on a display” that “simultaneously presents the attitude, the
speed and the altitude of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–
17; see also Appeal Br. 29 (Claim 11 reciting “overlays the corrective action
onto a display” and “simultaneously presents the attitude, the speed and the
altitude of the vehicle”). For these limitations, the Examiner relies on
Shaw’s teaching that, in the example of the novice pilot attempting a carrier
landing, the pilot adjusts the throttle controller to reduce the deviation
between actual and preferred throttle positions “while also controlling the
heading, altitude and attitude of the aircraft to keep it aloft and aligned.”
Non-Final Act. 6–7 (citing Shaw ¶ 91, Figs. 1, 2); see also Ans. 20–21 (“‘the
attitude, the speed, and the altitude of the vehicle’ are obviously being
monitored ‘for preparation for landing’ in addition to providing a
comparison of throttle control (which is used for ‘the attitude, the speed, and
the altitude of the vehicle’) between a trainee to a highly skilled pilot”).
Appellant responds, inter alia, that “Shaw does not teach
simultaneous displays of corrective action guidance being displayed for
and/or with presentation of ‘the attitude, the speed, and the altitude of the
vehicle.’” Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, “[w]hile Shaw’s Figure
3 image displays a magnitude of deviation from a desired thrust setting,
Shaw does not provide a single unified guidance with corrective action
required to achieve a desire outcome for the attitude, the speed, and the
altitude of the vehicle.” Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2019-002499
Application 14/599,766

6
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that
Shaw’s corrective-action graphical indicium is overlaid on a display that
simultaneously presents the vehicle’s attitude, speed, and altitude. As
Appellant notes, none of Shaw’s Figures depicts a simultaneous display of
these three parameters along with Shaw’s corrective action graphical indicia.
Although the Examiner reasonably infers that the pilot has access to a
display of the vehicle’s speed, attitude, and altitude from Shaw’s teaching
that the pilot controls these parameters, it does not necessarily follow that
Shaw’s corrective-action graphical indicium is simultaneously displayed
with—much less “overlaid” on—a display of these parameters.
Accordingly, we determine not to sustain the rejection of independent claims
1 and 11, and claims 2–10 and 12–20, which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Shaw, Batcheller,
Riley
1–20

REVERSED