Appeal No. 97-1114 Page 6
Application No. 08/222,643
routes, (2) a plurality of terminals located at points of
intersection of the plurality of routes or (3) the plurality of
routes extending from an urban area to a suburban area. Since
all the limitations of claim 6 are not found, either expressly
described or under principles of inherency, in Roth, the
examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) cannot be
sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 13, 14 and 15
We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 13, 14
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roth.
With respect to claims 13, 14 and 15, each of which depends
directly from independent claim 6, the examiner determined
(answer, p. 4) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention was made to fly the craft
of Roth at any desired altitude as is the custom of pilots
in certain areas and is also deemed an obvious method of
operation as well as flying in any desired direction.
Even if Roth was modified as set forth above by the
examiner, the modified device of Roth would still lack the
elements, noted supra with respect to parent claim 6.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007