THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2021

2020004786 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 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.
15/246,057 08/24/2016 Richard Bernard Guthrie B86918 2340US.1 (0150.1) 1965
128836 7590 09/23/2021
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/BOEING
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
PICON-FELICIANO, ANA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2021 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):
ipdocketing@wbd-us.com
patentadmin@Boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD BERNARD GUTHRIE
____________

Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–21, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The
Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates “generally to a targeting system and, in
particular, to a targeting system with dynamic, persistent tracking of
multiple field elements.” Spec. ¶ 3. In “[b]attlefield situations . . . multiple
targets and multiple offensive weapons [are] available,” but “[f]riendly
forces or non-combatants may be present in close proximity to targets.” Id.
¶ 4. It “can be difficult to know which targets have already been identified.”
Id. The present invention endeavors to “provide a targeting system and
method that relies on sensor and calculated angles of incidences to determine
and track the geographic location of field elements such as targets,
landmarks or friendly forces.” Id. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A targeting system for tracking a field element in a
physical environment, the targeting system comprising:
a personal display system configured to generate or enable
a live view of the physical environment, the live view including
the field element and having a field of view centered on a line of
sight (LOS) of the targeting system;
a sensor system configured to measure an attitude of the
targeting system in an azimuth and elevation that describe the
LOS of the targeting system, and in a tilt of the targeting system;
and
processing circuitry configured to receive the attitude from
the sensor, and programmed to at least:
determine a relative LOS from the targeting system
to the field element based on the attitude and a geographic
location of the targeting system, and a geographic location
of the field element;
determine a relative position in the live view from
the center of the field of view to the field element therein
based on the relative LOS; and
Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057

3
cause the personal display system to display a
primary view that overlays and thereby augments the live
view, the primary view including an icon at the relative
position that thereby overlays the field element in the live
view,
wherein the processing circuitry is further programmed to
identify another field element as having a relative position
outside the field of view based on the relative LOS from the
targeting system to the other field element, and
wherein the processing circuitry is programmed to cause
the personal display system to display the primary view that
further includes an arrow indicating a turning direction from the
LOS of the targeting system to the other field element.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–15, 17–19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kelly (US 8,939,366 B1; issued Jan. 27, 2015),
Lipscomb (US 2008/0218436 A1; published Sept. 11, 2008), and McNeil et
al. (US 2016/0216072 A1; published July 28, 2016) (“McNeil”). Final Act.
6.
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kelly, Lipscomb, McNeil, and Plunk (US 5,259,037;
issued Nov. 2, 1993). Final Act. 18.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–20
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kelly,
Lipscomb, and McNeil teaches or suggests “identify[ing] another field
element as having a relative position outside the field of view based on the
relative LOS from the targeting system to the other field element” and
Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057

4
“caus[ing] the personal display system to display the primary view that
further includes an arrow indicating a turning direction from the LOS of the
targeting system to the other field element,” as recited in independent claim
1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 11?
The Examiner generally finds that Kelly’s targeting display system
displaying information relating to one or more targeted objects teaches “a
targeting system for tracking a field element.” Final Act. 6 (citing Kelly
Figs. 1, 3–6). The Examiner generally finds that Lipscomb teaches
determining or calculating a relative LOS from a targeting system to the
field element based on attitude and geographical coordinates. Final Act. 7
(citing Lipscomb Abstr., ¶¶ 4, 18–30, Figs. 1, 6.) However, the Examiner
finds that neither Kelly nor Lipscomb explicitly teaches the disputed
limitations. Therefore, the Examiner relies on McNeil’s display to teach
these limitations. Final Act. 11 (citing McNeil, Figs. 1–12, ¶¶ 37, 42–46,
52–55, 61); Ans. 19–20. Specifically, the Examiner relies on McNeil’s
display, which shows an arrow that “may indicate the direction toward the
location of the predicted impact GPB” which “allows the user to obtain at
least a general indication of where he or she is aiming the weapon.” Final
Act. 11. The Examiner finds McNeill’s “system is configured to identify
multiple targets and/or field elements outside of the field of view and to
indicate with an arrow a turning direction of the targeting system in the
display when they have a relative position outside of the field of view based
on the relative line of sight from the targeting system.” Final Act. 11.
Appellant argues that McNeil’s “predicted impact point” does not
teach “the field element recited in the claims.” Appeal Br. 3–4.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the claimed “field element is any object
Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057

5
or personnel unit (single or group) that is identifiable and classifiable,” but
in “contrast, the predicted impact point” in McNeil “is simply a point
defined by mathematical calculations tied to the projectile and its related
weapon, not an identifiable and classifiable object or personnel unit.” Id. at
4 (citing Spec. ¶ 4); see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant also argues that McNeil
“fail[s] to teach or suggest the recited elements that involve identifying field
elements, their relative position with respect to a field of view, or a turning
direction towards a field element” because “McNeil neither teaches nor
suggests a field element.” Appeal Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, the Examiner
relies on Kelly, not McNeil, to teach tracking field elements. See Final Act.
6. Kelly describes a “targeted object 405.” Kelly, col. 6, ll. 47–54.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings as they pertain to Kelly
and the claimed “field elements.” We agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Kelly’s targeted object teaches a field element as claimed.
Further, McNeil generally describes “displaying remote sensed
images of a target area for interactive weapon targeting.” McNeil ¶ 2.
McNeil discloses an embodiment where “the [Unmanned Ariel Vehicle]
may fly to a specific location C,” which “allows the sensor 312 to properly
observe the predicted impact point B and to allow for targeting of the
weapon 302 to the target 304.” Id. ¶ 45 (emphasis added). McNeil also
discloses that “The User Views the Anticipated Weapon Effect Location and
Target Area (may include a target) (step 460).” Id. ¶ 46. In an example,
McNeil discloses that “display 730 shows a situation when the predicted
impact GP B is outside of the field of view of the camera, namely above and
left of the image shown” and using “an arrow F” to “indicate the direction
Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057

6
toward the location of the predicted impact GP B.” Id. ¶ 53. The arrow
“allows the user to obtain at least a general indication of where he or she is
aiming the weapon.” Id.
In other words, the sections of McNeil cited by the Examiner
generally teach aiming the weapon at a target. More specifically, the cited
sections of McNeil teach observing a location within a field of view of the
camera, including indicating the direction of a location that is outside of a
field of view of the camera, for the purposes of targeting a weapon to a
target. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that McNeil teaches aiming a
weapon at a target. See Final Act. 11–12 (citing McNeil ¶¶ 53, 55).
Appellant has not persuasively explained why McNeil’s target that is
targeted by the weapon using a predicted impact point does not teach the
claimed another field element. Consequently, Appellant has not explained
why McNeil’s identifying that a predicted impact point, used to aim the
weapon at a target, is outside of the field of view does not teach
“identify[ing] another field element as having a relative position outside the
field of view based on the relative LOS from the targeting system to the
other field element” as claimed. Nor does Appellant persuasively explain
why McNeil’s using an arrow to indicate the direction of the predicted
impact point, used to aim the weapon at a target, that is outside of the field
of view does not teach “caus[ing] the personal display system to display the
primary view that further includes an arrow indicating a turning direction
from the LOS of the targeting system to the other field element” as claimed.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11, as well as the § 103 rejections of dependent claims 2–5, 7–
10, 12–15, and 17–20, not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 5, 7–8.
Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057

7
Claim 21
Claim 21 further recites “wherein the other field element is a
previously identified field element by the targeting system or another
targeting system.”
The Examiner finds that McNeil’s predicted impact point and
identifying “other targets” teach other field elements that are previously
identified as claimed. Final Act. 17–18 (citing McNeil ¶¶ 37, 42–46, 52–55,
61, Figs. 10–11); see also Ans. 21–22.
Appellant argues against the McNeil reference for the same reasons
pertaining to claim 1, and add that McNeil does not “explain when such
targets were identified by a targeting system, or how the position of such
targets is known to the system.” Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4.
Specifically, Appellant argues that McNeil does not teach “that the other
field element is a ‘previously identified field element by the targeting system
or another targeting system.’” Appeal Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As discussed above,
Kelly and McNeil teach targets as the claimed field elements; and McNeil’s
arrow indicating the direction of a location outside of the field of view, for
purposes of targeting a weapon to a target, teaches an arrow indicating a
turning direction to an out of view field element. McNeil, describing Figure
10, also discloses “a target area” with a “predicted impact GP,” and that
“each weapon may display the predicted impact GPs of the other weapons.”
McNeil ¶ 58. McNeil discloses “determin[ing] which weapon . . . may be in
the best position to engage the target in view of their respective predicted
impact GPs.” Id. This example in McNeil allows “several weapons . . . to
work together in targeting the same or different targets.” Id. ¶ 57.
Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057

8
In other words, McNeil teaches using a weapons system to target
multiple targets, and using the respective predicted impact points of the
weapons for the purposes of targeting the weapons to targets. The targeting
of a weapon is based on predicted impact point information for the weapon,
and can apply to multiple targets. Appellant has not persuasively explained
why McNeil’s having multiple targets and looking at the predicted impact
points for those targets does not teach that the “other field element is a
previously identified field element by the targeting system or another
targeting system” as claimed. Specifically, Appellant has not explained why
McNeil’s predicting an impact point for a target does not teach that a field
element (i.e., target) was previously identified.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent
claim 21.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–9, 11–15,
17–19, 21 103
Kelly, Lipscomb,
McNeil
1–5, 7–9, 11–
15, 17–19, 21
10, 20 103 Kelly, Lipscomb, McNeil, Plunk 10, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–15, 17–21
Appeal 2020-004786
Application 15/246,057

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED