Not Prior Art

Patent Observations and Not-Prior Not-Art

Jed Margolin

About the Patents - 5,566,073 and 5,904,724

I have considerable information about the Patents and the field of Synthetic Vision.

A. Expiration dates (assuming all maintenance fees are paid):

According to my calculations, the expiration date for 5,566,073 is July 11, 2014 and the expiration date for 5,904,724 is January 19, 2016. These dates are based on the following calculations. I suggest you verify the dates yourself.

Here is how I calculated the dates.

From http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/2333.html

For utility patents issued in the USA:

If the application from which the patent issued was filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term begins on the patent issue date and ends 20 years after the effective filing date of the application. Not the day before (though probably few would want to go to court about conduct occurring on 11:59 PM that last day).

If the application is a continuation, continuation-in-part or division of a prior application, then its effective filing date is the filing date of the earliest filed non-provisional application in the chain of applications.

Remember, if the earliest application filed was a provisional application, that filing date does not count as the earliest date. This is also true for non-US applications, so look out for Australian or other provisional filings which serve as the priority documents when you do your patent term calculations.

If the application from which the patent issued was filed before June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is the longer of: (a) 17 years from issue date, or (b) 20 years from effective filing date.

A tricky case: If the application is the U.S. national stage of an international application filed in the PCT system, then its effective filing date is the international filing date despite the fact that the PCT application might have claimed priority to an earlier application. How can you identify such a patent? The face of the patent and/or the first paragraph of the specification should indicate that the application was filed under 35 USC 371.

Check out this cool website http://www.ssjr.com/tools/toolshell.aspx?tl=1 which will calculate a US patent term for you (but the catch is you have to fill in the correct effective filing date, bearing in mind the facts above).

For some examples for the US, see the table in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States and see whether you get the same answers.

5,566,073 Application filing date: August 9, 1995

Effective filing date: July 11, 1994

Issue date: October 15, 1996

“If the application from which the patent issued was filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term begins on the patent issue date and ends 20 years after the effective filing date of the application."

Expiration date: 20 years from Effective filing date = July 11, 2014

5,924,724 Application filing date: January 19, 1996

Effective filing date: January 19, 1996

Issue date: May 18, 1999

Expiration date: 20 years from Effective filing date = January 19, 2016

B. Patents, File Wrappers, Listed References, and Additional Material

5,566,073: See my Web page at http://www.jmargolin.com/patents2/pilot.htm

5,904,724: See my Web page at http://www.jmargolin.com/patents2/rpv.htm

C. Some Reality - Part 1

Over the years I made numerous attempts to license or sell the Patents. Then, Optima Technology Group tried.

5,566,073 was licensed to Honeywell. It was also licensed to Geneva Aerospace along with 5,904,724. (Geneva Aerospace is now owned by L-3.)

Every other company has behaved as follows. If their CEOs had been honest they would have said:

I have been instructed by the Company’s attorneys to tell you:

1. Your patents are invalid due to voluminous prior art, even though:

a. No one here has seen any of this prior art;

b. No one here would know prior art if it bit him in the ass;

c. No one here knows anything about patents.

2. Our products do not infringe because:

a. No one here knows anything about patents;

b. No one here actually knows what is in our products.

3. Even though you have asked for a friendly conversation and offered to partner with us, you have created a legal controversy because we are now in abject fear for our lives that you will sue us. Therefore, we will sue you first. We will bankrupt you before the case even gets to the part that is supposed to be about infringement. (We have patent infringement insurance and really evil attorneys.)

D. Some Reality - Part 2

NASA’s strategy has been a little different. They have tirelessly worked behind the scenes and through proxies to destroy the value of the patents.

In my Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit against NASA (United States District Court for the District of Nevada 3:09-cv-00421-LRH-VPC Margolin v. Bolden) one of the many documents that NASA produced is the following email:

[Page 2645] [AV2-A55]

Re: US Patents 5566073 and 5904724

From: Barry V. Gibbens, LaRC [redacted (b)(6)]

To: Mike Abernathy [redacted (b)(6)] Kennedy, Alan [redacted (b)(6)]

CC: Linda B. Blackburn [redacted (b)(6)]

Dan Baiz [redacted (b)(6)]

'Trey Arthur' [redacted (b)(6)]

DELGADO FRANCISCO J. (FRANK) [redacted (b)(6)]

FEIN, EDWARD K. JSC-H (NASA) [redacted (b)(6)]

Eric Boe [redacted (b)(6)]

Date: Sep 01 2004 - 11:29am

Hi Alan (and others),

Just to clarify the message below, I spoke with Mike Abernathy this morning, and I've spoken with Dan Baize on a number of occasions concerning this topic. I've also spoken with you (Alan) briefly, and with Linda Blackburn, Patent Counsel here at Langley (not Linda "Blackwell" :-). It seems clear that the technical folks have determined that the Margolin patent on Synthetic Vision creates a substantial problem for many of our partners in the aviation safety industry for a variety of reasons. It also seems clear that there is substantial prior art in existence to make an argument for re-examination of the Margolin patent. Linda has stated that we at Langley are willing to support an analysis of this situation at the Center level. She has, however, also told me that we first need to perform a formal infringement analysis to confirm (from a legal perspective) that we are in fact practicing the patent as described by its claims. If that analysis shows probable infringement, then we can proceed with a re-examination request, which Dan Baize has indicated he would be willing to fund. It is my understanding that you (again Alan) gave your blessing this morning for us to proceed at the Center level on these activities. If that is the case, I'll go ahead and begin moving on the formal infringement analysis, keeping you apprised of progress as it develops. Please let me know if you are in agreement with the situation as I have described it. If so, I'll begin work here shortly.

Thanks,

Barry

{Emphasis added}

The email was sent by Barry V. Gibbens (Patent Attorney, Langley Research Center, now deceased).

It was sent to:

· Mike Abernathy (Rapid Imaging Software) is the contractor who supplied the synthetic vision software for the X-38 project.

· Alan Kennedy (Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, NASA HQ, now retired)

The following people were copied:

· Linda B. Blackburn (Patent Counsel in the Office of Chief Counsel, Langley Research Center. She retired on Oct. 26, 2009)

· Dan Baize (Project Manager, Synthetic Vision, NASA Langley Research Center)

· Trey Arthur (NASA Langley Research Center) He is listed as the co-author on several reports from the early 2000’s on synthetic vision.

· Franciso (Frank) J. Delgado of the Engineering Directorate (Johnson Space Center) headed up the software project for the X-38 program.

· Edward K. Fein (Intellectual Property Counsel, NASA Johnson Space Center)

· Eric Boe [Lt Col Eric A. Boe, (JSC-CB) (NASA), now Colonel] Colonel Boe is an astronaut.

NASA never filed a Request for Re-Examination with the Patent Office. Perhaps NASA’s analysis of the supposed prior art showed them that it did not anticipate ‘073 and ‘724 and that the Patents would survive a Re-Examination and come out stronger. I don’t know. NASA has steadfastly refused to provide the supposed prior art and their analysis.

I am blogging the entire FOIA case in How NASA Treats Independent Inventors. http://www.jmargolin.com/nasa/nasa.htm

The best part starts at http://www.jmargolin.com/nasa/nasa.htm#d12

If you are interested only in the Court documents, go here: http://www.jmargolin.com/nasa/doc_index.htm

(Or, you can get them directly from Pacer and pay $0.08/page.)

NASA didn’t sit on their hands.

Mike Abernathy of Rapid Imaging Software co-authored an article in AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems Magazine which presented a spurious history of synthetic vision (Synthetic Vision Technology for Unmanned Systems: Looking Back and Looking Forward by Jeff Fox, Michael Abernathy, Mark Draper and Gloria Calhoun).

I responded with the article Synthetic Vision – The Real Story. Although the editor of AUVSI Magazine had promised me the opportunity to respond in the magazine, he later refused to even mention the controversy about the Abernathy article. My response is at: http://www.jmargolin.com/svr/auvsi_response_index.htm

(It contains the original AUVSI article.)

NASA admits to working with Abernathy. They call it Common Interest Privilege. See my OPPOSITION TO NASA’s CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document 50.

NASA insists on defaming the ownership of the Patents. At the beginning of the UASC case, a person named Reza Zandian fraudulently filed documents with the Patent Office, assigning the ‘073 and ‘724 patents (as well as two patents that I still owed) to his company. His company is named Optima Technology Corporation and is not associated in any way with Optima Technology Group (the rightful owner of the Patents).

During the UASC case the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled (Document 32, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, page 28):

1. Optima Technology Corporation has no interest in U.S. Patents Nos. 5,566,073 and 5,904,724 (“the Patents”) or the Durable Power of Attorney from Jed Margolin dated July 20, 2004 (“the Power of Attorney”);

2. The Assignment Optima Technology Corporation filed with the USPTO is forged, invalid, void, of no force and effect, and is hereby struck from the records of the USPTO;

3. The USPTO is to correct its records with respect to any claim by Optima Technology Corporation to the Patents and/or the Power of Attorney; and

4. OTC is hereby enjoined from asserting further rights or interests in the Patents and/or Power of Attorney; and

5. There is no just reason to delay entry of final judgment as to Optima Technology Corporation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

NASA knew about this Order. The Arizona Court’s Order is among the 4,000 or so pages of documents NASA gave me in November 2009. Click here.

The Patent Office obeyed the Court’s Order but, apparently, the Order is not good enough for NASA.

NASA’s actions in questioning the ownership of the patents are beneath contempt. NASA’s attempt to poison the well by having their agent Abernathy publish a spurious history of synthetic vision largely failed, so now they are questioning the ownership of the patents. NASA is using this FOIA lawsuit to promote their agenda for adding more poison to the well.

This is so important to NASA that NASA’s Courtney B. Graham (NASA Associate General Counsel) and Holly A. Vance (Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada) were willing to risk sanctions over it.

See Document 61, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE (#59), page 4.

And this is only the stuff that I know about. Undoubtedly, NASA has engaged in other activities that are even worse.

E. Who would be interested in these patents?

Let’s consider just 5,566,073.

5,566,073 Claim Chart for FAA Synthetic Vision

The Independent claims are Claim 1, Claim 12, Claim 23, and Claim 29. It is sufficient to show infringement of one Independent claim.

Claim 1

5,566,073 Claim FAA

1. A pilot aid which uses an aircraft's position and attitude to transform data from a digital data base to present a pilot with a synthesized three dimensional projected view of the world comprising:

{Ref. 1 – FAA definition of synthetic vision}

Synthetic vision means a computer-generated image of the external scene topography from the perspective of the flight deck that is derived from aircraft attitude, high-precision navigation solution, and database of terrain, obstacles and relevant cultural features.

a position determining system for locating said aircraft's position in three dimensions;

{Ref. 1 – FAA definition of synthetic vision}

a digital data base comprising terrain data, said terrain data representing real terrestrial terrain as at least one polygon, said terrain data generated from elevation data of said real terrestrial terrain;

{Ref. 1 – FAA definition of synthetic vision}

{Ref. 2 – FAA Synthetic Vision is based on a Digital Elevation Database}

“Everyone gets their data from the same original source.”

“If accuracy of data base must be validated then SV is unapproveable.”

“Current resolution tends to round-up the elevation data so that small errors are not as significant and on the conservative side.”

an attitude determining system for determining said aircraft's orientation in three dimensional space;

{Ref. 1 – FAA definition of synthetic vision}

a computer to access said terrain data according to said aircraft's position and to transform said terrain data to provide three dimensional projected image data according to said aircraft's orientation; and

{Ref. 1 – FAA definition of synthetic vision}

a display for displaying said three dimensional projected image data.

{Ref. 1 – FAA definition of synthetic vision}

Reference 1 – FAA definition of Synthetic Vision

FAA Title 14 Part 1

The FAA definition of synthetic vision from: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=41b1c51ea8ec4c9d1c5ebb94bbf28138&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.1.1.0.1.1&idno=14

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Synthetic vision means a computer-generated image of the external scene topography from the perspective of the flight deck that is derived from aircraft attitude, high-precision navigation solution, and database of terrain, obstacles and relevant cultural features.

Synthetic vision system means an electronic means to display a synthetic vision image of the external scene topography to the flight crew.

{Emphasis added.}

Reference 2 – FAA Synthetic Vision is based on a Digital Elevation Database

FAA SV Issues- Part 23 Position http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/transport/media/Pt23ApproachSlides.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration Part 23 Synthetic Vision Approval Approach
Presentation to: FAA Synthetic Vision Workshop
Name: Lowell Foster
Date: Feb 14, 2006

Page 13:

SV Issues - Part 23 Position
Terrain Data Confidence Issues Cont.

• Complete database accuracy impossible to validate

• Everyone gets their data from the same original source

• Manufacturers are doing everything possible to verify the current data is accurate, but that is really just a confidence builder

If accuracy of data base must be validated then SV is unapproveable.

Page 14:

PositionRisk Management / Mitigation of Terrain Uncertainties

•No operational credit for SV –current minimums still apply

•Significant safety benefits possible –outweighs what we consider minimal risk

•Experience -large data base errors to date have been easy to recognize and report –very visible on PFD and map display

•Small data base errors such as an elevation point are likely to be insolated, so exposure to a misleading information situation is considered small

•Current resolution tends to round-up the elevation data so that small errors are not as significant and on the conservative side

{Emphasis added.}

If you make a synthetic vision product and have received FAA certification for it, then you probably infringe.

Suppose an agent for a foreign government (like China) buys the patents and, since it will have some real money behind it, sues all of the manufacturers of synthetic vision products (including yours)?

Patent litigation is expensive and distracting, and your patent infringement insurance will run out if you are facing an opponent with unlimited funds.

And, as a Practicing Entity, they will be able to get an injunction.

F. Interesting Web hits.

I have had several Web Hosting Services over the years. In each case the reason I have left them is because they have screwed with the raw server logs.

All of my Web Hosting Services have offered Web Statistics (some better than others). They tell you who is going to your Web site and what people are looking at, but they don’t tell you Who is Looking at What.

That information is contained in the Raw Server Logs, sometimes called Access Logs. Many Web Hosting Services allow you access to them. Some don’t. Many don’t know the difference between the Raw Server Logs and the Web Statistics package.

Here’s how Raw Server Logs work.

Every computer on the Internet has an IP address. It is how data packets are routed to where they are supposed to go.

Every server on the Internet keeps a log of accesses containing information such as the IP address of the computer accessing the server, time and date of access, and the page or file being accessed.

My first Web Hosting Service did a reverse IP Lookup of the IP addresses. If the IP address resolved to a domain name, it listed the domain name. They seem to be the only ones who did it with shared hosting. Everyone else offers that feature only with dedicated hosting.

So this is what I do.

I download my server logs and run a program that I wrote and/or cobbled together. The program collects the IP addresses and eliminates duplicates. Then it does a Reverse IP lookup for each entry and makes a table pairing IP addresses and domain names. Note that not all IP addresses resolve to a domain name. Also note that the Reverse IP Lookup function is provided by the Domain Name Server (DNS) that your computer has been directed to by your Internet Service Provider. (Normally your computer uses the domain lookup function to get the IP address of a domain name.)

After I get the paired list of IP Addresses and domain names I go back and add them to the raw server log, so I know the domain name of the log entry.

Then the program culls out whatever I am interested in and produces another file.

For example:

This is a raw server log entry:

146.165.196.43 - - [16/Mar/2010:10:45:05 -0700] "GET /svr/auvsi_answer.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 387587 "http://www.google.com/search?q=smk-23+lander+simulator&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&safe=active" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100202 Firefox/3.5.8"

They were directed to my Web site from a Google search. I even know what search terms they used. (I have emboldened them.)

Who was this?

After my program ran I found out:

LRC200810688.ndc.nasa.gov 146.165.196.43 - - [16/Mar/2010:10:45:05 -0700] "GET /svr/auvsi_answer.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 387587 "http://www.google.com/search?q=smk-23+lander+simulator&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&safe=active" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100202 Firefox/3.5.8"

It was NASA.

If your Web site gets only a few hits per day you can look up the IP address manually. If you get 1,000 hits per day (or 10,000) it takes too long to do it manually.

The information I get from my software can be useful.

I used it in my Second Amended Complaint in my FOIA lawsuit against NASA. (The entries did not resolve to a domain name, but since they caught my attention I looked them up manually.)

Some Web hits are interesting:

hh-va10-wpw002.na.baesystems.com 149.32.192.34 - - [30/Mar/2010:11:38:39 -0700] "GET /sense/jm_sense_pap.pdf HTTP/1.1" 200 240253 "http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu5sFRbJL6psAH55XNyoA?p=PSR+SSR+correlator&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-891&sao=1" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; MSDigitalLocker; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; InfoPath.2)"

BAE Systems was interested in my Provisional Application for a Patent for System and Method For Sensing Aircraft and Other Objects. (They did a Yahoo search for: p=PSR+SSR+correlator.

Some are enigmatic:

portvila.fhu.disa.mil 209.22.104.17 - - [24/Feb/2011:12:38:44 -0600] "GET /nasa/refs/doc032-1.pdf HTTP/1.1" 200 3709522 "http://www.google.com/search?q=SCRUM+and+FFMIA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)"

(DISA is the Defense Information Security Agency.)

Some are a little alarming. (I had to look up this IP address manually.)

IP Address Country Region City Latitude/Longitude ZIP Code Time Zone

122.225.222.98 CHINA ZHEJIANG ZHEJIANG 29 120 - +08:00

Net Speed ISP Domain

COMP ZHEJIANG NUCLEAR NEW FLUSH NETWORK INFORMATION CO. LTD -

IDD Code Area Code Weather Station

86 - CHXX0078 - LANXI

122.225.222.98 122.225.222.98 - - [19/Feb/2011:16:53:04 -0600] "GET /debs/debs.htm HTTP/1.0" 200 300513 "http://www.jmargolin.com/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"

The page debs.htm is the page for my patent for a directed energy weapon. (It’s one of the patents that Zandian tried to steal.)

Here are some recent Web hits on March 2, 2011 that caught my attention:

Google search for "Patent 5904724:

dfw-gate3.raytheon.com 199.46.199.232 - - [02/Mar/2011:15:30:57 -0600] "GET /patents2/5904724.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 59836 "http://www.google.com/search?q=patent+5%2C904%2C724&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11"

Google search for Patent 5566073:

dfw-gate3.raytheon.com 199.46.199.232 - - [02/Mar/2011:15:32:23 -0600] "GET /patents2/5566073.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 75975 "http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jmargolin.com%2Fpatents2%2F5566073.htm&rct=j&q=patent%205%2C566%2C073&ei=ZLduTbzaIMiUtwea3bz4Dg&usg=AFQjCNESETLQxLylGwPMpSjUHdrdqVpHag" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11"

Google search for Margolin jed:

dfw-gate3.raytheon.com 199.46.199.232 - - [02/Mar/2011:15:34:15 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 17995 "http://www.google.com/search?q=Margolin+jed&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11"

Intro page to 5,904,724: rpv.htm

dfw-gate3.raytheon.com 199.46.199.232 - - [02/Mar/2011:15:34:33 -0600] "GET /patents2/rpv.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 4990 "http://www.jmargolin.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11"

Patent 5,904,724

dfw-gate3.raytheon.com 199.46.199.232 - - [02/Mar/2011:15:35:56 -0600] "GET /patents2/5904724.pdf HTTP/1.1" 200 1178817 "http://www.jmargolin.com/patents2/rpv.htm" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11"

Is Raytheon interested in the Patents? I don’t know.

Raytheon has been coming to my Web site for years. See it here.

Two of the articles that they like are:

The Secret Life of XY Monitors: http://www.jmargolin.com/xy/xymons.htm

The Secret Life of Vector Generators: http://www.jmargolin.com/vgens/vgmenu.htm

These articles are about the random scan video displays we used at Atari/Atari Games in coinop games such as Asteroids, Tempest, and Star Wars. We called them XY Monitors. They were also known as calligraphic displays. I doubt anyone uses them anymore so I was curious why Raytheon (and many others) would be interested in them.

I think it is because XY monitors require (and Vector Generators provide) the precise control of magnetic fields.

Where do you need precise control of magnetic fields?

Free Electron Lasers.

In 2009 Raytheon got a $150M contract from ONR to build an experimental 100KW Free Electron Laser for the Navy. http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1292&pagetemplate=release

On January 30, 2009 the law firm of Baker Botts (www.bakerbotts.com) seems to have ripped my entire Web site. (Click here.) They even Googled me:

dalgate-cogent.bakerbotts.com 204.194.98.34 - - [23/Feb/2009:14:42:38 -0500] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 15659 www.jmargolin.com "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jed+Margolin&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US228&ie=UTF-8" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009011913 Firefox/3.0.6 GTB5" "10.202.121.104"

Do they represent Raytheon?

You bet. At the very least Baker Botts is Raytheon’s lobbyist. Click here.

They lobby in the U.S. House of Representatives on matters involving the Department of Transportation.

According to this Web site (http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/lobbying/firm/baker-botts-llp/85D679A1-E059-4073-9AE3-CFE8E6001634) Baker Botts’ Lobbyists are:

Mead, Kenneth (covered positions: USDOT Inspector General )

Van Tine, Kirk (covered positions: Deputy Secretary, USDOT )

Mr. Van Tine is eminently qualified to lobby for Raytheon’s interests on matters regarding the Department of Transportation. From http://www.bakerbotts.com/kirk-k-van-tine/

Mr. Van Tine joined Baker Botts as an associate in 1978 and became a partner in 1987, concentrating on complex litigation involving business matters and the federal government. He left the firm in 2001 when he was nominated by President Bush to become General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

As General Counsel, he was the Department's chief legal officer, managing a staff of more than 1,000 attorneys. He was responsible for all significant rules issued by the Department's ten operating administrations, and handled a wide range of legal issues affecting the aviation, trucking, rail, maritime, pipeline and other transportation-sector industries.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, Mr. Van Tine was also responsible for the implementation of the $5 billion emergency airline compensation legislation, and was a member of the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, which was established to provide loan guarantees to air carriers that were unable to access the capital markets as a result of the disruption caused by the attacks. He assisted in the creation of the Transportation Security Administration and was heavily involved in transportation security issues. He served as General Counsel until September 2003, when he was nominated by the President to be Deputy Secretary of the Department.

Mr. Van Tine served as Deputy Secretary from December 2003 to December 2004. In that capacity he was the Department's chief operating officer, with responsibility for the day-to-day management of DOT's $58 billion budget and approximately 60,000 employees. He was also responsible for the development of major legislative and policy initiatives in the transportation sector, and for coordinating transportation policy issues within the executive branch. He was a member of the Amtrak Board of Directors, and was responsible for drafting the administration's legislative proposal for reforming passenger rail operations in the United States. He also served on the Deputies Committees of the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council, dealing with major homeland security policy issues.

Mr. Van Tine returned to the firm in January 2005. His practice encompasses government relations, administrative proceedings, litigation, and general business counseling in the areas of transportation and homeland security.

It’s called the Revolving Door.

Mr. Mead’s qualifications are just as impressive. From http://www.bakerbotts.com/kenneth-m-mead/

Prior to joining Baker Botts, Ken Mead was inspector general of the Department of Transportation, following nomination by President Bill Clinton and confirmation by the U.S. Senate in 1997. As inspector general, Mr. Mead was a member of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Prior to becoming inspector general, he served for 22 years with the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, where he held the positions of deputy assistant comptroller general for policy, director of transportation and telecommunications issues and senior attorney. On February 17, 2006, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution recognizing Mr. Mead for his exemplary service as inspector general.

As inspector general, Mr. Mead was responsible for investigating, auditing, and reporting to the Secretary of Transportation and Congress on the effectiveness and efficiency of DOT programs and operations through audit reports and management advisories containing findings and recommendations. From the beginning of his tenure in 1997, OIG issued more than 1,000 reports, which identified more than $7 billion that could have been more effectively used.

Mr. Mead also conducted investigations into fraud, waste and abuse and had the authority to refer suspected criminal violations to the U.S. attorney general. Under his leadership, OIG investigations resulted in over 2,500 indictments and 2,000 convictions and more than $500 million in fines, restitutions and recoveries.

Mr. Mead has frequently been invited to testify before committees of Congress. During his federal career, Mr. Mead testified on major transportation issues before committees of Congress on more than 230 occasions, 130 of them as inspector general. He also testified before the 9/11 Commission on aviation security and corrective actions that should be taken.

From the start of his tenure as inspector general in 1997, Mr. Mead's reports and testimonies addressed a broad range of transportation matters, including aviation safety and security; railroad, motor carrier and pipeline safety; FAA's multibillion-dollar air traffic control modernization program and efforts to mitigate flight delays and congestion; oversight of large highway, transit and airport projects to protect taxpayer investments and maximize use of available funds; the future structure and funding of intercity passenger rail service; and strengthening controls over the Title XI shipbuilding loan guarantee program.

From the several companies that I have checked it looks like everyone has lobbyists. (Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.)

Raytheon has more than one lobbyist: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/lobbying/client/raytheon-co

They are probably not the only ones. (I don’t have time to check right now.)

G. Prior Art That Isn’t

Over the years several companies have thrown what they say is prior art against the Patents. None of it has struck.

This is their idea of citing prior art:

1. They supply the citation of the non-patent reference (a paper or a book);

2. They do not supply the reference, so I have to chase it down;

3. They do not show how the reference is directed to the Patent claims;

4. They supply only a minimal discussion of the reference if they supply one at all.

This is the tactic used by Mike Abernathy in the AUVSI article I discussed above and responded to with the article Synthetic Vision – The Real Story at http://www.jmargolin.com/svr/auvsi_response_index.htm

Here are other references I have analyzed. I have tried to remove information that might identify the company that provided the references.

1. U. S. Patent 4,940,972 Method of representing a perspective image of a terrain and a system for implementing same issued July 10, 1990 to Mouchot, et al.

Mouchot 4,940,972

Analysis of Mouchot

2. Enhanced/synthetic vision systems: Human factors research and implications for future systems; David C. Foyle, Albert J. Ahumada, James Larimer and Barbara Townsend Sweet; Aerospace Human Factors Research Division (MS 262-3), NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000;

SAE Transactions: Journal of Aerospace, 101, 1734-1741; (1992).

Foyle Paper

Analysis of Foyle

3. Synthetic Vision For Enhancing Poor Visibility Flight Operations, H. Möller, Research Assistant and G. Sachs, Director, Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control, Technische Universität München; IEEE AES Magazine, March 1994.

Moller Paper - original PDF

Moller Paper - PDF from OCR of the original PDF in order to quote from it. Text searchable.

The original PDF is the controlling document

Analysis of Moller - Summary

Supplemental Document - jm_pilotdocs1.pdf

Supplemental Document - jm_pilotdoc2.pdf

Supplemental Document - ref3_tadema_DASC2003.pdf

Analysis of Moller - Complete

Supplemental Document - jm_rptmath.pdf

4. Figure 4. Spatial display format concept proposed during the U.S. Joint Army-Navy Aircraft Instrumentation Research (JANAIR) program in 1963 (from Theunissen and Etherington, 2003).

{Company} never provided the JANAIR reference and I was not able to find it.

{Company} never provided or even specified which Theunissen and Etherington paper referred to the JANAIR program and I have not found a Theunissen and Etherington paper from 2003 that referred to the JANAIR program.

A picture (Like the cited Figure 4) is worth a thousand words, especially when it is supposed to be prior art. You can just make up whatever words you want.

This was my response: ref4_jm_theunissen.pdf

5. Response to {Company’s} Non-Infringement Analysis: ref5_product.pdf

6. Analysis of Mathematical Elements for Computer Graphics, David F. Rogers (McGraw-Hill 1976 ISBN 0-07-053527-2). ref6_rogers.pdf

7. Analysis of Flights of Fantasy: ref7_fof.pdf

Supplemental Document: ref7b_PolygonDatabases2.pdf

8. Analysis of Build your own Flight Simulator in C++, Michael Radtke, The Waite Group 1996

(ISBN 1-57169-022-0): ref8_fsim.pdf

9. Analysis of Patent References and the Like: ref9_pats.pdf

10. Analysis of Alaskan Flight Trials of a Synthetic Vision System for Instrument Landings of a Piston Twin Aircraft, Andrew K. Barrows, Keith W. Alter, Chad W. Jennings, and J. David Powell, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Presented Apr 1999 at the SPIE Enhanced and Synthetic Vision conference, Orlando, FL.

ref10_barrows.htm

Supplemental Document: ref10a_ ada280564.pdf

Conclusion

A. As I have shown, there has been considerable supposed prior art thrown at 5,566,073 and 5,904,724 and none of it has stuck.

If you want to see an Aerospace patent that has solid grounds for a challenge, click here and go to page 68, line 9.

There are more like that.

B. I have two pending patent applications:

1. Patent Application Publication 20080033604 System and Method For Safely Flying Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Civilian Airspace.

For the File Wrapper as of May 2011 click here.

Buying ‘073 and/or ’724 does NOT give you any rights to this patent application.

2. A Patent Application for System For Sensing Aircraft and Other Objects. It has been sent out for a Security Review. After it has been cleared I will post it. In the meantime, you can look at the Provisional Application. (They didn’t send it out for a Security Review.) http://www.jmargolin.com/sense/sense.htm.

Buying ‘073 and/or ’724 does NOT give you any rights to this patent application, either.

C. If you buy ‘073 or ’724 you should consider buying my TomCat game.

http://www.jmargolin.com/tomcat/tomcat.htm#ch2

Jed Margolin

Virginia City Highlands, NV

March 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

October 31, 2011

I think this is a good time to update this page.

A. As I previously mentioned, Honeywell licensed 5,566,073 and Geneva Aerospace (now owned by L-3) licensed 5,566,073 and 5,904,724.

I have decided to post the license agreements here because they are already publicly available. NASA provided them to me as a result of a Freedom of Information Act Request. They weren’t what I had requested, and what I had requested they refused to give me. For that story click here. Presumably, NASA will also give them to everyone else, either because they have asked for them or because they have asked for something else.

NASA failed to redact financial information so I did that myself.

For the Honeywell agreement click here.

For the Geneva Aerospace agreement click here.

B. The last maintenance fee for 5,904,724 was due May 18. Optima Technology Group failed to pay it so the patent has expired.

Click here.

.end