Appeal No. 97-1114 Page 21
Application No. 08/222,643
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I concur with the result reached by my colleagues with
respect to the anticipation and obviousness issues raised by the
examiner’s rejections. Additionally. I concur with the new
rejection of claims 6, 8 through 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
that has been added pursuant to provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
However, I write separately to place on record my belief that the
newly applied prior art patent to Kappus also renders
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the method of independent
claim 17 and the system of dependent claim 14.
Claim 14 depends from claim 6 and adds details concerning
the "plurality of routes" called for in the base claim.
Specifically, claim 14 calls for first, second, third and fourth
routes that ascend vertically from a terminal to an altitude of
400, 600, 800 and 1000 feet, respectively, extend to another
terminal, and descend vertically. Appellant's claims do not
preclude the "craft" of the claimed "system" from being a
conventional helicopter. Ascending vertically from a first
location to a given altitude, flying at that altitude to a second
location, and descending vertically to a second location is an
obvious method of operating a conventional helicopter. Moreover,
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007