Appeal No. 2004-1457
Application No. 09/696,299
briefs. We agree with appellants’ argument that the examiner’s
finding that the claimed “measurement of flight parameters” is
met by the structural fatigue measurements of Adams is incorrect.
Appellants’ specification indicates that the claimed invention is
intended to improve on the prior art techniques of using fatigue
measurements. The types of flight parameters described in the
specification are all of a type which relate to conditions of
flight which can provide an estimate of the actual flight regime
of the aircraft (specification, page 3). Thus, the examiner’s
decision to read the claimed measurement of flight parameters on
the fatigue measurements of Adams was unreasonable in view of
appellants’ specification and in view of the generally accepted
definition of what constitutes a flight parameter.
With respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, since this rejection fundamentally relies on the
examiner’s incorrect findings with respect to Adams as discussed
above, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
9 because the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007