Ex Parte McCool et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-1457                                                        
          Application No. 09/696,299                                                  

          The disclosed invention pertains to a procedure for                         
          monitoring and determining flight usage of an aircraft based on             
          measurements of flight parameters.                                          
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.   In combination with an algorithm system located                   
               onboard an aircraft through which data from measurement of             
               flight parameters is processed on a real time basis, a                 
               method of monitoring flight usage of the aircraft, including           
               the steps of: sampling the flight parameters by generation             
               of measurement signals reflecting the flight parameters;               
               programming said sampling of the fight parameters;                     
               performing calculations of estimates on the flight usage               
               derived from said sampled measurement signals; operationally           
               intermapping said programming of the sampling with the                 
               estimate calculations of the flight usage for accurate                 
               determination thereof; and displaying data reflecting said             
               accurate determination of the flight usage.                            
          The examiner relies on the following reference:                             
          Adams et al. (Adams)            4,336,595           Jun. 22, 1982           
          Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                   
          being anticipated by the disclosure of Adams.  Claim 9 stands               
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                
          Adams in view of “Official Notice.”                                         
          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                       
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                 

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007