Appeal No. 97-1114 Page 8
Application No. 08/222,643
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 17
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Roth.
Claim 17 recites an urban-suburban mass transit method
comprising, inter alia, (1) loading passengers onto a first craft
at one terminal, (2) flying the first craft to another terminal,
(3) contemporaneously loading passengers onto a second craft at a
terminal, (4) flying the second craft to another terminal,
(5) contemporaneously loading passengers onto a third craft at a
terminal, and (6) flying the third craft to another terminal.
With respect to independent method claim 17, the examiner
made the same determination as set forth above with respect to
claims 13, 14 and 15.
In our opinion, the device of Roth as modified as set forth
by the examiner would still lack several of the steps recited in
claim 17. In that regard, we agree with the appellant's argument
(brief, p. 23) that the applied prior art would not have
suggested the contemporaneously loading passengers onto three
different crafts as recited in claim 17. Accordingly, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007