Appeal No. 95-1866
Application 07/878,500
in Figures 4A and 4B (col. 3, lines 30-34). The operator can
elect to display the results in real time or in fast mode and may
choose a particular part of the flight for review (col. 13,
lines 26).
The examiner, recognizing that Benn's flight data
display system is not disclosed as being mounted on the aircraft
and thus fails to satisfy claim 1's requirement that the location
detecting system be mounted on the vehicle, argues that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it an
obvious matter of engineering choice to playback [sic,
play back] the recorded data wherever it was desired to
locate play back equipment, the location chosen having
no effect whatsoever on the ability of an operator to
examine the recorded data. An ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it desirable to play back data
on the aircraft due to quicker down time of the
aircraft, by not having to transport and return
recording means between the aircraft and another
location. The decision on where to place play back
equipment would have been based on such routine design
choices as space availability, size of equipment,
availability of portable playback means, acceptable
time limits for data examination, aircraft down time
limits and type of recording medium. [Answer at 6.]
Appellant responds that the mounting of Benn's flight
data display system in the aircraft is based on hindsight and is
contrary to the stated purposes of Benn's invention, including
the primary purpose of allowing accident analysis and the
secondary management purposes of monitoring of aircraft
maintenance and performing incident analysis. The examiner
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007