Appeal No. 95-1866
Application 07/878,500
While we are reversing the rejection of claim 1 for the
foregoing reasons, we note that the examiner properly rejected
appellant's argument that an aircraft modified to include Benn's
flight data display system would not "have the capability of
being able to promptly detect the cause of a breakdown in the
navigation system, as can be carried out by the present
invention" (Brief at 8). As the examiner correctly notes, this
argument is unpersuasive because this function is not recited
the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5
(CCPA 1982) (argument that a feature of the invention provides a
function or result not taught by the prior art is immaterial if
the function or result is not recited in claim).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 and
of claims 2 and 5-7, which stand or fall therewith, is reversed.
Dependent claims 3 and 4, which were argued separately,
stand rejected for obviousness over Benn in view of Ando.
Claim 3 specifies that the sensor means of claim 1 comprises a
magnetic sensor and wheel sensors. Claim 4 specifies that the
sensor means of claim 1 comprises a GPS (Global Positioning
Satellite) receiver for sensing an absolute location of the
vehicle.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007