Appeal No. 96-4156
Application 08/218,135
mechanical means is detected. Column 10." As correctly noted
by Appellants, this statement is in error "because the
discussion at column 10 of the O'Neil Patent (claim 1) which
the Examiner refers to corresponds to operation of the outer
loop of O'Neil's primary steering system when there has been
no failure, as more fully discussed at column 6, line 41-
column 9, line 11 of the O'Neil Patent" (RBr8). We agree with
Appellants that the references fail to disclose or suggest a
failure detecting means or a means for prohibiting the
reaction control means from producing a command to a power
means when the failure detecting means has detected a failure.
We further agree with Appellants that there is no suggestion
to modify Yamamoto's system to include a secondary, failure-
mode steering system such as taught by O'Neil. There are so
many differences between Yamamoto and O'Neil that it is
difficult to tell why one skilled in the power assisted
steering art would have been led to modify Yamamoto in view of
O'Neil except by using hindsight.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007