nosoftwarepatents-award

English

Deutsch

Home

Software Patent
of the year 2006

July – Patent 1

EP1157318 – Method for generating advance ground proximity notices and computer program for altering controllably the base width of an alert envelope

EU-Patent on software (algorithm)
Application to European Patent Office on 01/02/2000 by Honeywell International Inc. (USA)
Granted on 21/5/2003
Patent attorney: Gill Jennings & Every
Appeal filed by Thales S.A. (France) on 17/2/2004 on the grounds of lacking patentability according to articles 52 to 57 EPC and on the grounds of incompleteness and lacking perspicuity of the patent specification
Appeal withdrawn on 9/8/2004
Date of priority: 1/2/1999 (valid no more than until 1/2/2019)
Patent specification provided by FFII/Gauss
Patent specification provided by EPO/espacenet
Access to records provided by EPO/epoline

Advice on the reading of patent specifications:

The decisive element are the claims, as they specify which actions are forbidden within the framework of the patent.
Violating one single claim is sufficient to be considered a patent violation. Generally, claim number 1 is the decisive main claim which covers all other claims relating to special cases.
The description is intended to help the reader interpret the claim. At the same time, it is supposed to document and disclose the details of the invention. This disclosure is the original purpose of the entire patent system.
In practice, a patent specification contains no detailed information on how the patented procedure could be implemented (even if the patent owner allowed the implementation). In particular, a software patent contains no program code (reference implementation), but merely describes the idea of a software.

Patented idea:

Allowing for accurate measurement of a ground proximity warning system for aircrafts

Main claim (claim 6): Adjusting the range ("base width of the alert envelope") supposed to raise the alarm to the type of navigation equipment used for locating the aircraft`s current position

Further claims:

Additional adjustment for approaching a landing strip
Special case: Larger base width in case of using a flight management system and smaller base width in case of using GPS
Limitation of the base width to a maximum value with GPS
Additional adjustments to the accuracy of knowledge about the terrain
Ground proximity warning system which implements the patented method (claims 1–5)

(In contrast to the English version the German version of claim 1 specifies a varied configuration of the processor as a function of the type of navigation system. As this does not make sense a translation error must be involved)

Description: The patent specification documents the insight that it makes sense for a ground proximity warning system to allow for accurate measurement of the navigation system because otherwise occurring false alarms would reduce the attention the aircraft`s staff pays to alarms.

Furthermore it is documented that an adjustment of the alarm range to the flight situation (normal flight respectively landing) is already state of the art. The patented idea refers to additional adjustments to the accuracy which applies to the noted position of the aircraft.

Everyday parallel: During a cross-country drive in a car the driver instructs the co-driver to give a warning as soon as they stray away more than 20 metres from the track. Initially this works out well. After a little while the car gets into an area where GPS cannot be received well and the co-driver begins to warn again and again: "Now we are 50 metre too far right. Now....". Reply of the driver: "OK, please warn me only if we get carried away more than 100 metres off course."

Examples for patent infringements: Ground proximity warning systems in aircrafts and in flight simulator software.

Back to survey results

Next Patent