US 8700298

I'll research US patent 8700298 across USPTO and litigation sources.

Let me check specifically for litigation and CAFC 2026 activity involving this patent.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks for any CAFC or PTAB proceedings.

US 8,700,298 B2 — Verified Summary

No litigation found. I ran targeted searches against district-court, PTAB, and CAFC materials for this specific number and found no CAFC 2026 docket, no district-court case, and no PTAB proceeding involving US 8,700,298. Every search hit containing a "298" patent was a different patent (e.g., US 8,891,298 — Vervain's NAND-flash/data-storage patent litigated against SK hynix, Micron, etc.; US 8,093,298; US 8,299,298; the '6,298 wafer-inspection patent). I am treating the number literally and not substituting any of those. Caveat: my search tools do not comprehensively index the Federal Circuit docket, so "no CAFC 2026 activity found" is a statement about search results, not certified ground truth.

---

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative patent text)

Abstract (verbatim)

"The different advantageous embodiments provide a method for generating an integrated aircraft clearance. Flight information, preference information, environmental information, and constraints are retrieved from a number of sources. The flight information includes at least one of flight plan information, flight scheduling information, flight status information, and environmental information. The flight information is processed against the preference information, the environmental information, and the constraints. A clearance solution is generated for an aircraft based on the flight information, the preference information, the environmental information and the constraints."

---

Independent claims in plain language

There are six independent claims: 1, 11, 13, 14 (method), 16 (system), and 19 (apparatus).

Claim 1 — Method (core concept). A processor retrieves (a) flight information (flight plan / schedule / status), (b) environmental information, and (c) constraints. It also retrieves preference information supplied by the aircraft and/or the airline, covering preferences for speed, arrival time, and/or route. The processor checks the flight information against those preferences to identify a clearance solution containing a preferred route and a preferred speed, then modifies that solution in light of the environmental information and to satisfy the constraints. (Note: the granted claim 1 is narrower than the as-published claim 1, which merely recited "generating a clearance solution" — the "preferred route and preferred speed" and "modifying… to satisfy the constraints" limitations appear to have been added during prosecution.)

Claim 11 — Method (speed clipping). Same retrieval/processing/generation framework, but the processing step specifically requires: determining whether preferred speeds fall within air traffic control limits and aircraft performance limits, and — if they don't — clipping the preferred speeds to the ATC limits, while staying within aircraft performance limits.

Claim 13 — Method (metering optimization). Same framework, but the processing step requires determining whether a clearance should be generated using metering optimization, and if so, determining a dynamic metering window that expresses the available runway and airspace resources for the flight in order to perform that optimization.

Claim 14 — Method (required time of arrival / RTA). Same framework, with a detailed processing branch: determine whether the clearance should be derived using the RTA function; if so, determine whether the aircraft requested a specific RTA; if not, make the controlled time of arrival (CTA) the RTA; if it did, constrain the RTA to a meter window; calculate the speed needed to meet the CTA; test that speed against the aircraft's performance limits; if within limits, perform conflict detection; and make the clearance available to a flight object manager.

Claim 16 — System. A flight object manager that collects flight information (flight plans, schedules, flight status) and preference information (airline and/or aircraft preferences), plus a clearance generator in communication with it that receives the flight information and preferences along with environmental information, identifies constraints and preferences for a flight, and generates solutions.

Claim 19 — Apparatus. A metering manager configured to perform metering optimization by calculating a dynamic metering window identifying a required spacing in time between aircraft at a meter fix, for a number of flights, based on differences in speed of the aircraft, together with a clearance generator configured to produce a clearance solution using that dynamic metering window. (This "differences in speed" language maps directly to the FIG. 4 disclosure, where a faster trailing aircraft can create a conflict at the runway that is more restrictive than the meter-fix spacing alone.)

---

Key implementation details from the specification (context for claim construction)

• The system is disclosed as residing at a ground control center (aircraft operations center or ATC) and integrates aircraft-operator/aircrew preferences with traffic and weather data using knowledge of airborne automation, aircraft performance, and airspace limits.
• FIG. 4 describes conflict detection during meter-window computation: receive metering information (CTAs for successive aircraft), apply conflict detection at the meter fix, then find the meter-window limits — accounting for landing intervals at the runway, not just meter-fix spacing.
• The clearance generator exploits the metering window for airline/aircraft benefit; a fixed window (e.g., 30 seconds) is used when dynamic metering optimization is not applied.
• Clearance is delivered via FANS-1/A and ATN processor, Airline Operation Center (AOC) messaging, or Air Traffic Services (ATS).
• RTA use may be conditioned on aircraft capability, airline authorization, meter-fix constraints, and traffic density.

Uncertainty / caveats

• Litigation: No CAFC 2026 (or other) proceeding tied to this number was found in my searches; I cannot certify no such proceeding exists, only that my searches did not surface one.
• Claim text: The granted claims differ materially from the pre-issue publication US 2012/0083997 A1 (e.g., published claim 2 recited "using the preference information to select an available solution within a metering window"; published claim 19 used "configured to performs"). Any analysis of scope should use the granted claim set, not the publication.
• Inventor address: One source renders the NL city as "Amstelveen" and the patent PDF OCR as "Amteleven"; the true value is likely Amstelveen, but I flag the discrepancy rather than silently correcting it.
• Patent citations listed include US 2010/0241345 A1 (Cornell, "Methods and systems for tailored allocation of arrivals") and EP 1 995 706 A2 (Boeing), which are plausible prior-art references considered during prosecution.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8700298 across patent litigation databases and court sources.

Let me try more targeted searches on litigation-specific databases.

Let me search additional litigation databases and check for any assertion of this specific patent.

Summary Conclusion

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,700,298 is known.

Based on the sources searched, I found no district court case, no Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal, no ITC investigation, and no PTAB post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR) naming U.S. Patent No. 8,700,298 ("Tailored arrivals allocation system clearance generator," The Boeing Company).

---

Basis for This Conclusion

1. Google Patents record for US8700298B2 (authoritative text supplied).
The patent's full bibliographic and legal-events record contains no "Litigation" section and no litigation events. For patents that have been asserted, Google Patents normally populates a litigation listing. Here, the page instead shows only:

• Family / country status: US, AU (AU2011307517A1, abandoned), SG (SG189149A1), WO (WO2012044406A1, ceased)
• "Cited By" only two references, both non-litigation: US20130063435A1 and US9091547B2 (BAE Systems, "Simulating a terrain view from an airborne point of view")
• Legal events: assignment to The Boeing Company (2010), patent grant (2014), and maintenance-fee payments at years 4, 8, and 12 (most recent 2025-10-15). Status: Active, expires 2032-09-15.

A patent that is being maintained by a large entity but has no litigation, no PTAB challenge, and a narrow citation footprint is consistent with a portfolio/defensive asset that has never been asserted.

2. Litigation-database and web searches.
Searches for "8700298" / "8,700,298" against patent-litigation aggregators (Unified Patents Portal, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/Justia-style dockets, and general web) returned no case naming this patent. I could not complete direct PACER and CAFC docket queries before running out of search steps, so I cannot claim an exhaustive docket-level clearance.

---

Important: Similar-Numbered Patents That Are NOT This Patent

Per the strict instruction to interpret identifiers literally and not auto-correct, I want to flag the look-alike numbers that surfaced in results so there is no confusion:

None of these is U.S. Patent No. 8,700,298. I did not treat any of them as the patent in question.

---

Related Context (not litigation of this patent)

• Sibling patent: U.S. Pat. No. 8,818,576 ("Tailored arrivals allocation system trajectory predictor"), same priority date (2010-09-30), same assignee (Boeing), listed in the cross-reference of the '298 patent. No litigation for it was found either.
• Related family filings (prosecution, not litigation): WO2012044406A1, SG189149A1, AU2011307517A1 (abandoned), AU2015221471B2.

---

Caveats

• I was unable to run direct PACER/CAFC docket-number queries before exhausting my search budget. My conclusion is therefore based on the authoritative Google Patents record (which shows no litigation) plus aggregator/web searches that surfaced no case for this number.
• I found no evidence of any asserting party (e.g., a Boeing assertion campaign or an NPE acquiring and asserting the '298 patent). The patent remains with The Boeing Company.

If you need a higher-certainty clearance, the definitive next step is a direct query of PACER (all district courts) and the CAFC docket system for "8,700,298," plus a PTAB API check — I can outline those queries if useful.

I'll start by confirming the structured data's baseline (no AIA proceedings on file) against public sources, then check for any recent filings the ODP may not have indexed.

Let me check litigation/litigation-history aggregators and Unified Patents, since asserted patents often attract IPRs (and IPRs sometimes follow district court suits).

Let me run a couple of final targeted checks — including for any litigation that might precede an IPR, and any Federal Circuit activity.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 8,700,298: 0 — the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block reports that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web checks (Google Patents family/legal-events data, RPX/Insight, and targeted searches for IPR/PGR/CBM filings naming the patent) surfaced no PTAB filing that the ODP might simply have failed to index. Bottom line: there is no institution, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, and no Federal Circuit appeal to report. The patent stands untested at the PTAB — not "hardened" (an IPR-savvy defendant may still be the first to challenge it) and not "narrowed" (no claims have been canceled). The defensive posture is genuinely open, not predetermined.

No verbatim proceeding numbers can be listed because none exist. I will not invent any.

Per-proceeding detail

None. No Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review of US 8,700,298 has been filed or instituted. Accordingly, none of the required sub-fields (type, filing date, status, judge panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal, defensive value) have content. I am explicitly declining to populate them with placeholders, because doing so would require fabricating a proceeding number, a panel, or a disposition — all of which the task constraints forbid.

Strategic summary

Claim status and scope. All 20 claims of US 8,700,298 are UNTESTED in an AIA trial — no claims are CANCELED and none are SUSTAINED-by-FWD. The claim set (as issued, per the patent text) comprises four independent method claims — claim 1 (retrieve flight/preference/environmental info; process; modify to satisfy constraints), claim 11 (the speed-clipping branch: "clipping the preferred speeds to air traffic control limits within aircraft performance limits"), claim 13 (metering optimization / dynamic metering window), and claim 14 (required-time-of-arrival (RTA) branch and conflict detection) — plus independent system claim 16 (flight object manager + clearance generator), independent apparatus claim 19 (metering manager calculating a dynamic metering window), and dependent claims 2–10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20. The patent's statutory term runs from the 2010-09-30 priority date, with an adjusted expiration of 2032-09-15, and it remains in force (12th-year maintenance fee paid 2025-10-15). Because there has been no IPR, there is no claim-level narrowing to rely on, and there is no printed-claim-estoppel effect to point to.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is not triggered for anyone, because estoppel attaches only after a petitioner obtains an FWD. That cuts both ways for a defendant: it means a future petitioner retains the full universe of prior art — the art already of record during prosecution and art that was never considered. This matters here because the pre-issuance art of record is unusually rich for this technology space (the Google Patents citation list includes the Boeing/MITRE lineage — US 4,825,374 to King et al.; US 6,593,358 (NASA en-route spacing); US 6,584,400 (Beardsworth); US 6,606,553 and US 6,604,044 (MITRE, weather problem resolution and conflict resolutions); US 2003/0050746 and US 6,873,903 (Baiada, trajectory tracking); US 2004/0078136 (Cornell, tailored trajectory generation); US 2010/0241345 (Cornell, tailored allocation of arrivals); and EP 1,995,706 A2 (Boeing, conflict-checked trajectory revision recommendations)). Any of these — alone or in combination, and especially in combination with non-patent literature such as the Coppenbarger EDA and Tailored Arrivals papers and the Korn AMAN/4D-FMS paper cited during prosecution — is available to a first-mover petitioner without estoppel risk. The corollary warning for a current defendant: because the patent has no PTAB history, the usual "the art has already been run and survived" inference is unavailable, and the validity fight would be de novo.

Pattern signals. There is no repeating petitioner, no patent-owner PTAB appeal practice to observe, and no evidence of a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain. Assignee is The Boeing Company (assignment recorded 2010-10-01, Reel/Frame 025080/0385). I found no district court assertion of the '298 patent itself in the public sources searched — the only Boeing patent litigation that surfaced (Levine v. Boeing, involving US RE39,618) is unrelated to this patent and does not involve this patent or this technology as the patent-in-suit. There are related Boeing filings in the same family (the sibling trajectory-predictor patent US 8,818,576 and the EP 2,667,364/365/366/367 conflict-detection family), but those are prosecution- and citation-relationships, not PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the absence of PTAB activity as a factual finding, not a gap. No institution decision, FWD, or appeal exists to cite. Do not represent otherwise in a brief or demand response. Re-verify before relying on it, since the ODP ingest is a snapshot — but my independent web check corroborates the ODP result as of today.

2. If you are a defendant being asserted on this patent, IPR is a live, unencumbered option. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against you (you'd be the first petitioner), so every prior-art ground remains open. The highest-value targets are the broad independent method claim 1 ("processing ... to identify a clearance solution comprising a preferred route and a preferred speed" and "modifying ... to satisfy the constraints" — arguably result-oriented and vulnerable under § 103) and the functional apparatus claim 19 (a "metering manager ... configured to perform metering optimization," which invites a § 112(a)/(f) written-description and enablement attack alongside § 103). Confirm your own 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar date from any complaint served on you before filing.

3. Watch the 1-year statutory trial clock if a petition is filed. Once instituted, the PTAB's final written decision is due within 12 months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable up to 6 months for good cause. Institution decisions are due within 6 months of the petition's filing date. There are no such milestones to track today because no petition exists.

4. Preserve and mine the prosecution record now. Because nothing has been litigated at the PTAB, the prosecution history (including the 716 days of PTA noted on the face of the patent, reflecting prosecution delay) is the only claim-scope record. Pull the file wrapper via USPTO PatentCenter for US 12/895,400 and the sibling application US 12/895,447 before building any invalidity or claim-construction position; the earlier-filed US 2010/0241345 (Cornell) published reference is worth particular scrutiny as a § 102(a)/(e) candidate.

Confidence and caveats: I am confident in the zero-proceeding finding based on the structured ODP data plus corroborating public searches, and I flag that PTAB E2E was not directly reachable in this session — if absolute certainty is required, a direct query of the PTAB E2E "Patent Number" search and a PACER docket check for any co-pending litigation should be run as final confirmation. I have not fabricated any proceeding number, panel, or disposition, and none of the per-proceeding sub-fields can be responsibly filled absent an actual filing.

I'll start by verifying the assignment record and cross-referencing ownership/litigation data.

Let me verify current ownership status and check for any litigation or post-issuance transfers.

I've verified the assignment data against the fetched patent record, Google Patents legal events, and cross-referenced litigation/ownership sources. Here is the reconstructed record.

---

Inventors

All six named inventors were employees of The Boeing Company at the time of filing (2010-09-30). The specification lists the assignee as The Boeing Company (Chicago, IL) and the inventors as Boeing personnel working in Boeing's air-traffic-management research group (Boeing Technology / Phantom Works). Inventor Robert W. Mead is separately documented as Boeing's "Lead Engineer for Tailored Arrivals and Communications, Phantom Works Air Traffic Management, The Boeing Company" (ICNS Conference plenary deck, May 2008), corroborating the employer.

Pattern note: No unusual pattern. The inventors assigned their rights to their employer by the standard employee-inventor assignment (signed 2010-09-28 to 2010-09-29), and there is no evidence any of them departed Boeing within 12 months of filing or any portfolio fire-sale. The "all inventors departing" tell is not present. Note the sibling application Ser. No. 12/895,447 ("Tailored Arrivals Allocation System Trajectory Predictor," which issued as US 8,818,576 B2 to Boeing) shares most of the same inventor group and was filed the same day — a normal same-team continuation practice, not a distress signal.

Original assignee

The Boeing Company (Chicago, Illinois), original and current assignee of the issued patent.

• Primary line of business: Aerospace manufacturer / defense contractor; the "Tailored Arrivals" work sat in Boeing's advanced air-traffic-management research arm (Boeing Phantom Works).
• Product embodying the claims: Boeing's Tailored Arrivals program fielded ground automation and datalink-based 4D arrival clearances (the "TAATS" ground tool referenced in Boeing's own technical presentations), trialed in San Francisco, Miami, and Amsterdam and transitioned toward operational use. So a real deployed/operational program exists, though it is a research/program deployment rather than a shelf product. This is a strong indicator of an operating-company patent, not a paper asset.
• Current status: Operating. The patent remains owned by Boeing, is Active, and the 4th, 8th, and 12th-year maintenance fees have been paid (2017-10-16, 2021-10-15, 2025-10-15) per Google Patents legal events. Adjusted expiration 2032-09-15.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO record for this patent contains exactly one recorded assignment — the original inventor-to-Boeing transfer. There are no post-issuance assignments, no security interests, no mergers, no name changes, and no transfers to any third party. (Google Patents legal events show only: Assignment 2010-10-01 → patent grant 2014-03-26 → maintenance-fee payments 2017/2021/2025.)

• 2010-09-29 (executed; signature dates 2010-09-28 to 2010-09-29) / recorded 2010-10-01 — Reel 025080/0385
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignors: Meador, Suzanne Elise; Mead, Robert W.; Dijkstra, Ferdinando; Maldonado, Christie Marie; Saccone, Gregory T.; Cornell, Bradley David
  • Assignee: The Boeing Company (Illinois)
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in the fetched record. The Google Patents legal-events text records the reel/frame and signing dates but omits the recording correspondent's name/firm/address. This field must be pulled directly from the USPTO Patent Assignment Search record for Reel 025080/0385 to complete the chain; I will not fabricate a name. Because this is a routine, single-employee-inventor-to-employer assignment with no downstream links, there is no repeat-correspondent pattern to flag.
  • Context: Ordinary employer/employee invention assignment at filing — not a fire-sale, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Finding to record plainly: the Assignment Center record for US 8,700,298 terminates at the original assignment. No subsequent owner exists in the chain. This normally means the original assignee still owns the patent — and that is confirmed here by active status and self-paid maintenance fees.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8700298
    2010 : Filed by The Boeing Company
         : Inventors assign rights to Boeing
    2014 : Patent issued to Boeing
    2017 : Maintenance fee paid by Boeing
    2021 : Maintenance fee paid by Boeing
    2025 : Maintenance fee paid by Boeing

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is inventor → The Boeing Company (Reel 025080/0385, recorded 2010-10-01). There is no transfer to any "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No assignee matches any public NPE directory (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Mosaid, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). Boeing is the sole current assignee.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not applicable. With only one link in the chain, recurrence cannot arise. The correspondent name for Reel 025080/0385 is not present in the fetched data and would need to be retrieved from the Assignment Center before any finding could be made.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Zero post-issuance transfers; nothing chained.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming US 8,700,298 was found in litigation searches, and there is no assignment within 6 months of any suit.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 event for Boeing touching this patent; ownership unchanged.
7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer to any NPE, and no evidence Boeing asserts this patent through an intermediary.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it simply never left Boeing.

Note on the "tailored arrivals" family: the related filings in this space (e.g., Cornell et al., US 2010/0241345 and 2004/0078136) are themselves Boeing/Raytheon-origin work and independent third-party documents; nothing in the chain indicates third-party assertion activity.

Verdict

Insufficient data — per the enumerated criteria, this is the "only the original assignment" case: the chain consists solely of the inventor-to-employer assignment recorded at Reel 025080/0385 on 2010-10-01, and no post-issuance transfer exists.

Justification: The patent is owned by The Boeing Company, an operating aerospace manufacturer with a real deployed Tailored Arrivals program, which has self-paid every maintenance fee (4th/8th/12th year, 2017-10-16 / 2021-10-15 / 2025-10-15), and no NPE, litigation, bankruptcy, or shell-transfer signal is present. Because the ownership chain never progressed beyond the original assignment, there is no factual basis to reach "operating-company assertion" (Boeing is not suing competitors on this patent) or any NPE verdict — the honest call is insufficient data / no transfer history.

Verification link: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search "8700298" or Reel/Frame 025080/0385); current portal at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

I'll search for the patent and its key prior-art references to ground this analysis.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,700,298 B2

Patent under analysis: US 8,700,298 B2 — "Tailored Arrivals Allocation System Clearance Generator"
Application: US 12/895,400 · Filed: 2010‑09‑30 · Granted: 2014‑04‑15 · Assignee: The Boeing Company
Inventors: Meador, Mead, Dijkstra, Maldonado, Saccone, Cornell
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8700298/en ; front‑page PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0e/c1/e4/b2ccc42965ebd8/US8700298.pdf

---

1. Identification and an important framework caveat

I confirmed the record literally: exactly one patent corresponds to 8700298 — US 8,700,298 B2 (application 12/895,400; pre‑grant publication US 2012/0083997 A1). No similar‑number substitutes are used below.

Framework note before the per‑reference analysis. Because the effective priority date is 2010‑09‑30 — before the AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file date of 2013‑03‑16 — the pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies (i.e., § 102(a), (b), (e), etc.). Two honest qualifications:

1. § 102 anticipation requires that a single reference disclose every limitation of a claim, arranged as in the claim. Most of the 47 references on the face of this patent touch only a fragment of the claimed subject matter (trajectory prediction, weather, surface traffic, satcom link, etc.). For those, the realistic statutory basis is § 103 (obviousness), not § 102 — and indeed the Boeing/TAAS family was prosecuted around such combinations.
2. I do not have the file‑wrapper rejection record here, so I will not assert that any reference was actually applied under § 102. What follows is a potential‑relevance mapping: which claims each reference, standing alone, could arguably anticipate, based on the disclosure overlap I can verify. Where anticipation is implausible I say so.

---

2. Most relevant prior art (ranked)

The single strongest single‑reference candidate is US 2010/0241345 A1. Note a nuance: it shares inventors (Cornell, Mead, Saccone) and assignee with the patent and is effectively a family‑adjacent TAAS document. It is nonetheless genuine prior art under pre‑AIA § 102(a)/§ 102(e) because it published 2010‑09‑23, before the 2010‑09‑30 filing date — so "same applicant" does not remove it as a reference.

---

3. Reference‑by‑reference analysis (the 47 patent citations on the face of US 8,700,298)

The dates below are priority/filing date → publication date as listed in the patent's own citation table. "Potential § 102 claim(s)" flags the claims that overlap most closely on a single‑reference reading; treat those as candidates, not confirmed anticipations.

Notes on the strongest candidates

• #43 US 2010/0241345 A1 (Cornell). Discloses a ground‑based TAAS that collates air‑traffic‑services scheduling, aircraft/airline preferences, weather, surveillance and trajectory/intent data; filters against flight‑specific preferences, aircraft performance, airspace and terrain constraints; and generates a tailored arrival solution comprising speed, route, altitude and RTA. That maps closely onto claim 1 (retrieve flight/preference/environmental info + constraints, process, generate clearance) and claim 16 (flight object manager + clearance generator). It is the reference most likely to have driven the § 102/§ 103 discussion for the independent claims. See https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100241345 and the granted counterpart US 9,159,240 B2.
• #37 EP 1 995 706 A2 (Boeing). Real‑time, conflict‑checked, operationally preferred trajectory revisions — relevant to claim 1's "preference vs. constraint" balancing and to claims 14–15 (conflict detection).
• #13 US 2004/0078136 A1 (Cornell) and #8 US 6,584,400 B2 (Beardsworth) and #22 US 7,313,475 B2 (NASA delay banking) together supply the metering/scheduling dimension underlying claims 2, 13, 19.

---

4. References that are not prior art (flagged)

Three entries in the citation list are the patent's own family/prosecution artifacts, not prior art:

• WO 2012/044406 A1 — the PCT publication of the same application (priority 2010‑09‑30). Same invention, not prior art.
• WO 2012/044405 A1 and US 2012/0083946 A1 — the "Tailored Arrivals Allocation System Trajectory Predictor" sibling (US 12/895,447 / US 8,818,576 B2), cross‑referenced in the patent's own "Cross Reference to Related Applications." Same priority date (2010‑09‑30) and same applicant ⇒ not § 102 prior art.

---

5. Non‑patent literature cited (for completeness)

The examiner also cited 21 NPL items. The technically most relevant are:

• Coppenbarger et al., Design and Development of the En Route Descent Advisor (EDA) for Conflict‑Free Arrival Meeting, AIAA‑2004‑4875 (metering/CTA computation).
• Coppenbarger et al., Field Evaluation of the Tailored Arrivals Concept for Datalink‑Enabled Continuous Descent Approach, 7th AIAA ATIO, 2007.
• Korn et al., 4D Trajectory Management in the Extended TMA: Coupling AMAN and 4D‑FMS…, ICAS 2006 (4‑D trajectory metering).
• Oprins et al., Impact of Future Time‑Based Operations on Situation Awareness of Air Traffic Controllers, 8th USA/Europe ATM R&D Seminar, 2009.
• Weitz, An analysis of merging and spacing operations with continuous descent approaches, 24th DASC, 2005.

These are printed publications usable under § 102(a)/(b) if dated before the critical date, and are most relevant to the metering‑window and RTA aspects of claims 2, 13, 14, 19.

---

6. Bottom line

• US 8700298 = US 8,700,298 B2, Meador et al., Boeing, filed 2010‑09‑30 — confirmed, no substitution.
• The single most relevant prior‑art reference is US 2010/0241345 A1 (Cornell, Boeing) — a § 102(a)/(e) reference that published seven days before filing and overlaps claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11–14, 16–20.
• Secondary candidates on narrower limitations: EP 1 995 706 A2 (preference + conflict checking → claims 1, 14, 15, 17), US 2004/0078136 A1 (tailored trajectory → claims 1, 11, 16), US 6,584,400 B2 and US 7,313,475 B2 (metering/delay banking → claims 2, 13, 19), US 6,603,358 B1 (meter‑fix spacing → claims 2, 19), US 6,604,044 B1 (conflict resolution → claims 14, 15).
• Most of the remaining 40+ citations are remote/cumulative art (trajectory prediction, comms links, altitude alerts, surface traffic) that would support § 103 combinations rather than clean § 102 anticipation.
• Caveat I will not paper over: absent the actual USPTO file‑wrapper rejections, the § 102 claim mappings above are my subject‑matter overlap judgments, not confirmed anticipations. Full anticipation requires every limitation in one reference, and several references here disclose only fragments of the claimed clearance‑generation method.

I'll ground my analysis in the prior-art references listed on this patent's page. Let me verify key references before building combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,700,298 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

Patent: U.S. 8,700,298 B2 — "Tailored arrivals allocation system clearance generator" (The Boeing Company; filed 2010‑09‑30; granted 2014‑04‑15; inventors Meador, Mead, Dijkstra, Maldonado, Saccone, Cornell).

Sources used: Only the references actually listed in the Prior Art sections of this patent's Google Patents page — i.e., the "Patent Citations (47)" and "Non‑Patent Citations (21)" entries — plus the patent's own specification and claims (authoritative text supplied). I verified the substance of the four most load‑bearing references by live search (URLs below).

Cross‑reference to prior sections: The earlier litigation section concluded the '298 patent has no known litigation, no PTAB challenge, and no ITC action, and is a maintained Boeing portfolio asset. That finding is relevant here in only a limited way: there is no litigation/validity record, no claim-construction order, and no IPR institution decision to inform or constrain the § 103 analysis. Obviousness is therefore assessed on the face of the references. I do not repeat the litigation findings further.

---

1. Threshold: prior‑art status of the cited references (identifiers read literally)

The '298 patent has a priority/filing date of 2010‑09‑30 (pre‑AIA). The references cited on the page that matter for this analysis and their effective prior‑art dates are:

Two flags (read identifiers literally, no auto‑correction):

1. Family members cited on the page are not available as prior art. The page's citation list includes US20120083946A1 and WO2012044405A1 ("Tailored arrivals allocation system trajectory predictor") and US20100241345A1 (already covered). US20120083946A1 / WO2012044405A1 are the sibling filed on the same day (2010‑09‑30) as '298 and sharing its priority date. They cannot be § 102 art against '298 and must be excluded from any § 103 combination. Only the published Cornell application US20100241345A1 (2009 priority) is usable.
2. Some citations are not probative for this patent. Baek et al. (identity‑based cryptography) and Robinson et al. (public‑key enablement) appear to relate to a different co‑pending application (U.S. Ser. No. 12/904,339, "Identity‑based secure communications with aircraft") and have no bearing on the clearance‑generator claims. I exclude them.

---

2. The hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA here is a team/skilled engineer in air traffic management (ATM) automation and avionics, holding at least a bachelor's degree in aeronautical/electrical engineering or computer science plus 3–5 years of experience with arrival metering tools (e.g., TMA, EDA, AMAN), flight‑management systems (FMS), data link (FANS‑1/A, CPDLC), and trajectory prediction. This is a well‑populated, mature art with active NASA/FAA/Eurocontrol/DLR/Boeing/MITRE work, and the level of ordinary skill includes familiarity with the EDA, AMAN, and Tailored Arrivals literature cited on the page.

---

3. Claim 1 — element mapping and the primary combinations

Claim 1 requires:

• (a) retrieving flight information (flight plan / flight scheduling / flight status), environmental information, and constraints;
• (b) retrieving preference information provided by the aircraft or airline comprising preferences for speed, arrival time, and route;
• (c) processing the flight information against the preference information to identify a clearance solution comprising a preferred route and a preferred speed; and
• (d) modifying the clearance solution based on environmental information and to satisfy the constraints.

3.1 Primary combination A — US20100241345A1 (Cornell TAAS) alone

This single reference (Boeing, filed 2009‑03‑17, published 2010‑09‑23) discloses every element. Its own claim 17 recites (verified via the RPX/Eureka/Justia reproductions of US20100241345A1 / US9159240):

"…collating data from multiple sources including a plurality of air traffic services sequencing and scheduling, aircraft and airline flight preferences, weather, surveillance data, trajectory and intent information from the aircraft and airline preferences; filtering the collated data against a plurality of flight specific preferences, an aircraft arrival direction, aircraft performance parameters, airspace constraints, aircraft operator preferences, and terrain constraints; and generating a tailored arrival solution for the aircraft, based on the filtering step, the tailored arrival solution including a plurality of speed, route, altitude, and a required time of arrival; and providing the tailored arrival solution…"

And its specification states the system "develop[s] custom or tailored route clearances using combinations of route, speed, and altitude changes or constraints," determines "the correct constraint and profile envelope … that allows an aircraft to make maximum use of its own unique flight optimization systems to provide the best profile for its operator, while still remaining within the required constraints of the surrounding airspace," and takes into account airline preferences such as cost index, fuel efficiency, and on‑time performance.

That maps 1:1 onto (a)–(d). Notably, the operative claim language of the related granted Cornell patent ("preference information provided … by at least one of the aircraft and an airline, the preference information including preferences for at least one of speed, arrival time, and route") is nearly verbatim the limitation in '298 claim 1 — confirming that the '298 claim 1 concept was already in the Cornell disclosure and that the two share inventors (Cornell, Mead, Saccone) and assignee (Boeing).

Conclusion for claim 1: US20100241345A1 alone anticipates or, at minimum, renders claim 1 prima facie obvious. Even if one argued it is directed to a "descent profile" rather than a "clearance," the TAAS reference expressly generates route clearances with route + speed + altitude, and the difference (if any) is a matter of nomenclature, not inventive contribution.

3.2 Combination B — Cornell + Coppenbarger EDA + Coppenbarger "Tailored Arrivals"

Adds the ATM‑side rigor the Cornell disclosure frames at a higher level:

• Coppenbarger EDA (AIAA‑2004‑4875) — "EDA computes advisories … to help deliver aircraft to an arrival‑metering fix in conformance with a scheduled time‑of‑arrival constraint, while preventing separation conflicts … By computing strategic maneuver advisories based on speed, altitude, and heading to meet arrival time with a high degree of precision…"
• Coppenbarger Tailored Arrivals (AIAA‑2007‑7778) — datalink "trajectory‑based clearances," "tailored trajectory clearances to accommodate artificially imposed metering constraints," and wind/descent‑speed‑intent sharing between ground and air.

Motivation to combine: Cornell's TAAS expressly identifies EDA as the incumbent tool and criticizes it for "not includ[ing] aircraft operator preferences, inter‑ATS facility coordination, and direct coordination with the aircraft operator." A PHOSITA reading Cornell is therefore led directly to EDA as the starting point to be improved — a textbook "identify the problem and look to known solutions" rationale. EDA supplies the constraint/metering and conflict‑detection mechanics; Cornell supplies the preference integration. Same field, same problem (efficient, de‑conflicted arrivals), expected improvement.

3.3 Combination C — Cornell + Korn et al. (AMAN + 4D FMS)

Korn is arguably the strongest teaching of the "modify preference only as needed" concept that underlies '298 claim 1's "modifying … to satisfy the constraints":

"the aircraft is free, i.e. it can choose any user preferred profile, respecting the ground constraints. The challenge of the ground system is to minimize these constraints, so that still a smooth, efficient and conflict free inbound traffic flow is maintained." … "Calculate conflict free traject[ory] / Generate constraints / Send constraints to aircraft."

Korn also discloses negotiation of the flight plan with ATC/ATM by means of data link, ETA accuracy of ±3 s, and user‑preferred trajectories integrated with AMAN sequencing.

Motivation: Korn teaches exactly the architecture '298 claims — ground system computes conflict‑free trajectories, emits constraints, and lets the aircraft fly its preferred profile where constraints allow. Combining with Cornell's preference management and EDA's meet‑time logic yields the '298 clearance‑generator function with a reasonable expectation of success (Korn reported flight‑trial accuracy).

---

4. Dependent claims 2–10

---

5. Independent claims 11, 13, 14 and their dependents

Claim 11 (speed clipping to ATC limits within aircraft performance limits). This is a conventional seek‑and‑clip operation. Coppenbarger EDA computes meet‑time speed advisories bounded by the aircraft's speed envelope and ATC constraints; US20100241345A1 supplies "aircraft performance parameters" and ATS limits. The claim adds only the bare logical branch (determination → clipping), which the case law treats as an obvious implementation of a known control action.

Claim 12 (request a trajectory from a trajectory predictor). Directly taught by US20100082185A1 ("Calculating Flight Predictions by Vertical Sections," Thales), by US20100241345A1 ("trajectory predictor 76"), and by Korn (ground/board trajectory engines).

Claim 13 (metering optimization → dynamic metering window expressing available runway/airspace resources). The EDA reference is essentially this: TMA/AMAN schedules arrival times and EDA targets that metering constraint; US6584400B2 and US7313475B2 ("Delay banking for air traffic management") teach optimizing arrival slots against runway/airspace capacity. Korn's AMAN ("update previous sequence … calculate conflict free traject…") teaches the dynamic, resource‑aware window.

Claim 14 (full RTA branch: RTA determination → CTA=RTA if no specific RTA → constrain RTA to meter window → calculate required speed → check performance limits → conflict detection → hand clearance to flight object manager). This is the strongest obviousness case. Every step exists in the art:

• RTA/CTA selection and metering window → Coppenbarger TA + EDA, US20100241345A1 (ETA/RTA generator 60);
• constraining RTA to a window / clipping → Korn (AMAN generates time constraints);
• speed necessary to meet the time → Coppenbarger EDA (meet‑time speed advisories);
• performance‑limit check → US20100241345A1;
• 4‑D conflict detection → Coppenbarger EDA; US6604044B1 (conflict resolutions for free flight); EP1995706A2 (conflict‑checked trajectory revisions);
• handing the clearance to a distribution/messaging function → US20100241345A1 (FANS‑1/A and ATN processor; AOC messaging) and Coppenbarger TA (CPDLC clearance to the flight deck).

The combination is a predictable, ordered arrangement of known steps to solve a known ATM problem (meet a metered time while de‑conflicting and honoring preferences) — the KSR "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" scenario.

Claim 15 (if speed outside limits → iterate trajectory predictor for speed/route combos → select per preferences → conflict detection → make clearance available). Taught by Coppenbarger EDA (iterative meet‑time maneuver search over speed/heading/altitude) with preference selection from Cornell/Korn.

---

6. System claims 16–18

Claim 16 (flight object manager + clearance generator). US20100241345A1 structurally discloses the same architecture: an "ATS coordination" function, an "AOC coordination" function, a "clearance generator function 58," an "ETA/RTA generator 60," a "trajectory predictor 76," and messaging functions (FANS‑1/A and ATN, AOC messaging) that distribute the clearance — i.e., the claimed flight‑object‑manager/clearance‑generator topology is present or obvious from the TAAS block diagram (Fig. 1).

Claim 17 (preferences for routing, speed schedules, arrival time, fuel efficiency). US20100241345A1 expressly discusses cost index and fuel vs. time trade‑offs ("one airline may prefer to land quickly … while another airline would be more interested in fuel savings"); US7606641B2 teaches fuel/route optimization.

Claim 18 (trajectory predictor in communication with clearance generator, called by it). US20100241345A1 (trajectory predictor 76) and US20100082185A1 (Thales vertical‑section predictions).

---

7. Apparatus claims 19–20

Claim 19 (metering manager computing a dynamic metering window identifying required spacing at a meter fix based on differences in speed of the aircraft). The "differences in speed" element mirrors the patent's own FIG. 4 discussion (a trailing aircraft flying 250 kt vs. a 220 kt leading aircraft creates a runway‑landing‑interval conflict). That phenomenon and its treatment are squarely within Coppenbarger EDA (speed‑based meet‑time/spacing) and US6393358B1 ("En route spacing system and method"); Weitz ("merging and spacing operations with continuous descent approaches") is directly on point for spacing as a function of speed. US6604044B1 supplies conflict‑resolution computation. Adding a "metering manager" module that performs this is a predictable implementation.

Claim 20 (clearance solution based on flight info, preferences, environmental info, constraints). Fully taught by US20100241345A1 (see §3.1).

---

8. Consolidated motivation‑to‑combine (KSR rationales)

1. Same field, same problem. All primary references (Cornell TAAS; Coppenbarger EDA/Tailored Arrivals; Korn AMAN/4D‑FMS; EDA antecedents) address arrival‑phase flight management — reducing fuel/noise while preserving throughput and de‑conflicting traffic. Combination is within a single, coherent art.
2. Express lead in the art. Cornell's TAAS explicitly names EDA and identifies its shortcomings ("EDA do[es] not include aircraft operator preferences, inter‑ATS facility coordination, and direct coordination with the aircraft operator"). That is a direct, articulated motivation — not hindsight — to combine ATC metering (EDA) with operator‑preference integration (TAAS/AOC).
3. Known functions combined by known methods. Meet‑time advisories (EDA), spacing at a meter fix (US6393358B1), weather avoidance (US6606553B2), vertical/flight‑level planning (US7366591B2), conflict resolution (US6604044B1, EP1995706A2), and fuel optimization (US7606641B2) are each established, separable functions. Combining them in a single ground clearance generator is the ordinary engineering task.
4. Finite, predictable solution space. The available control variables are the classic, closed set — route, speed, altitude, and time (RTA/CTA) — confirmed by both Cornell (speed/route/altitude/RTA solution) and EDA (speed/altitude/heading advisories). A PHOSITA would predictably enumerate these; "obvious to try" applies.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Coppenbarger TA reported ground‑based and airborne automation predicting meter‑fix arrival times to within a mean of 3 s over a 25‑minute horizon; Korn reported ±3 s ETA error in flight trials. Success was demonstrated, not speculative.
6. Commercial/regulatory drivers. Airline fuel/on‑time economics (cost index) and ANSP throughput/environmental goals created simultaneous, well‑documented pressure to integrate operator preferences with ATM constraints — a classic "market forces" / "design incentive" rationale.
7. Admissions in the '298 specification itself. The '298 background concedes that "current systems may assist controllers with metering arrival … but do not take into account the preferences of an airline or aircraft. Other systems may give advice for speed and routing…" The stated advance is thus the integration of known actors/functions — and KSR teaches that "a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each element was independently known," but equally that mere integration of known elements to achieve a predictable result does not confer patentability absent unexpected results (none are shown here).

---

9. Foreseeable rebuttals and secondary considerations

• "Modify preferences only to the extent necessary" (minimal impairment). This appears to be the '298 characterization as a point of novelty. It is nonetheless taught by Korn: the ground system's task is "to minimize these constraints … the aircraft is free … to choose any user preferred profile, respecting the ground constraints." So this does not rescue the claims.
• No unexpected results / no nexus. No reference in the record shows a surprising or superior result attributable to a specific claim element beyond the expected efficiency/predictability benefits already predicted by Coppenbarger TA and Korn. Any commercial‑success argument would need a demonstrated nexus to a claimed feature — not evident here.
• Teaching away: I found no reference teaching away from combining ATC metering with operator preferences; the art actively moves in that direction.
• Prior‑art gap to be honest about: Cornell's published application US20100241345A1 (2010‑09‑23) and the '298 patent share common inventors/assignee (Cornell, Mead, Saccone; The Boeing Company). Under pre‑AIA § 102, the "by others" requirement and § 102(e) analysis for a commonly‑invented application are fact‑specific and could be contested (e.g., common inventive entity disqualification arguments). I note this because it is the one point where the strongest anticipatory‑style reference could be challenged — but it does not defeat the multi‑reference § 103 combinations (Coppenbarger EDA/TA + Korn + US6393358B1 + US6606553B2 + US7366591B2 + US6604044B1, etc.), which independently render the claims obvious. I flag my uncertainty on the precise pre‑AIA status of US20100241345A1 rather than asserting it as settled.

---

10. Conclusion

On the face of the Prior Art section of this page, the claims of US 8,700,298 are highly vulnerable to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. The most efficient challenges are:

• Claims 1, 16, 17, 18, 20: US20100241345A1 (Cornell TAAS) alone, or in view of Coppenbarger EDA.
• Claims 2, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19: US20100241345A1 + Coppenbarger EDA (AIAA‑2004‑4875) + Coppenbarger TA (AIAA‑2007‑7778) + Korn et al. (ICAS 2006), with US6393358B1 and US6584400B2 for the spacing/metering‑window elements.
• Claims 3–9, 11–12: the above in further view of US6606553B2 (weather), US7366591B2 (vertical/flight‑level planning), US20100082185A1 (trajectory prediction), US20100324812A1/WO2009082785A1 (routing/airspace), US6604044B1 and EP1995706A2 (conflict detection), and US7606641B2 (fuel/route optimization).

The claimed subject matter is, at bottom, the integration of established ATM automation functions (metering, spacing, conflict detection, trajectory prediction) with established operator‑preference inputs (cost index, route/speed/time preferences) to produce route/speed/time clearances — a predictable combination, taught or suggested across the cited art, with a demonstrated reasonable expectation of success and no evidence of unexpected results.

Caveats: (1) I did not run a full independent prior‑art search beyond the references listed on this page; a broader search (e.g., FAA/Eurocontrol SESAR documentation, additional AMAN/EDA patents, and the EDA‑related NASA publications) would likely strengthen the combinations. (2) My statement of the pre‑AIA prior‑art status of US20100241345A1 is reasoned from its publication date and the shared inventors, not from a formal § 102 determination. (3) This is a technical/patentability analysis, not a legal opinion.

Key URLs used for verification: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8700298/en (authoritative text); https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US9159240B2](/patent/US9159240B2) and https://www.patents-review.com/a/20100241345-methods-systems-tailored-allocation-arrivals.html (Cornell TAAS); https://scholar.archive.org/work/efcflbanlbehfnytedhcbg4x64 (Coppenbarger EDA, AIAA‑2004‑4875); https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.39795 (Coppenbarger Tailored Arrivals, AIAA‑2007‑7778); http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2006/PAPERS/489.PDF (Korn et al., ICAS 2006).