Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 22
Application No. 09/834,499
aircraft, and provides resistance to false trips due to vibration
(col. 1, lines 12-15 and 43-47). Although the reference does
show the claimed override switch as noted by the examiner, we
find that the reference is directed to preeventing problems
caused by vibration in an aircraft, and is not drawn to the same
field of endeavor nor reasonably related to the problem that
appellant is solving. We therefore find that an artisan would
not have been motivated to modify the teachings of Iijima,
Takagi, Weber and Flanagan with Hansen in order to arrive at the
claimed invention. From all of the above, we find that the prior
art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim
12. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Takagi and
further in view of Weber, Flanagan and Dodd. The examiner’s
position (answer, pages 16 and 17) is that Iijima, Takagi, Weber
and Flanagan do not suggest an indicator for the override switch.
The examiner turns to Dodd for this feature. Appellant
position (brief, pages 21 and 22) is that “[a]ppellant does not
dispute that it is known to include indicators to indicate when a
switch is activated.” However, appellant asserts that claim 13
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007