Appeal No. 97-1114 Page 12
Application No. 08/222,643
a conventional runway. The much slower approach speeds
could permit many more aircraft to safely occupy the
air space for multiple takeoffs and landings.
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined,
the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are
to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18,
148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Kappus and claim 6, it
is our opinion that the only difference is the limitation that
there is a plurality of terminals located at points of
intersection of the plurality of routes which extend from an
urban area to a suburban area to form a network.
The test for obviousness is what the teachings of the
applied prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in evaluating such prior
art it is proper to take into account not only the specific
teachings of the prior art but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007