Appeal No. 2000-0230
Application No. 08/761,671
about the point of
intersection” [principal brief-page 4]. Thus, in appellants’ view, it would not have been
obvious to place the vertical speed pointer between the artificial horizon and the altimeter.
Appellants offer no argument regarding the obviousness of providing first and
second sensors for detecting altitude and vertical speed. Accordingly, there is no dispute
on this issue.
Thus, we focus on the obviousness of disposing the vertical speed pointer between
the artificial horizon and the altimeter.
We agree with appellants that the instant claimed subject matter would have been
unobvious over the applied reference. The specification is very specific, at page 9, as to
the advantages achieved by placing the vertical speed pointer between the artificial
horizon and the altimeter:
…the vertical speed pointer 11 is between the artificial horizon 15 and
the altimeter 7, 10, pointing towards the latter, of course. This position
of the pointer 11 is in fact fundamental to assisting with control of the
flight of the aircraft. In particular when the latter is a helicopter, for reasons of
readability associated with the logical eye movements of the pilot. The
pointer rotates in a logical and appropriate manner about the center of the
instrument panel screen.
The use of the indicator therefore becomes second nature, because
of a knock-on effect.
The specification then continues on to explain the “knock-on effect:
-the pilot essentially controls the trim of the helicopter…to adapt it to an
optimal vertical speed…and monitors the trim using the artificial horizon 15
(in the center in the figure 5),
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007