Appeal No. 95-5063
Application 08/058,612
axes unaffected by the intervention” by the pilot (column 4,
lines 5 through 9).
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), “a flight
crew response alert is triggered if aircraft position is not
converging with a route, the alert being a ‘Not on intercept
heading’ message (col. 8).” Graham makes clear (column 7,
line 52 through column 8, line 31) that the noted message is
only generated in response to a test of an IFMS subroutine,
and not an “active route” as claimed. More importantly,
Graham is completely silent concerning “a predetermined time
period” that the aircraft fails to converge with the route.
In fact, Graham fails to mention any time periods for
performing any functions in the FMC or the IFMC. Thus, the
examiner’s conclusions (Answer, pages 3 through 5) that
“[c]hoosing to monitor the aircraft position for a
predetermined time in order to decide whether an alert should
have been given, . . . would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art,” and that “it would have been
inherent that the convergence monitoring of Graham would have
required a set time period between at least two points in
time, . . .” are not buttressed by any evidence in the record,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007