Appeal No. 95-5063
Application 08/058,612
Stockton 4,546,353 Oct. 8, 1985
Graham et al. (Graham) 4,811,230 Mar. 7, 1989
(filed Aug. 15, 1986)
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Graham.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Graham in view of Stockton.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection,
the examiner states (Answer, page 6) that:
In claim 10 it is unclear how or
when “a silent flight crew advisory”
is generated.
The claim specifically recites
that an aural alert is responsive to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007