Appeal No. 2002-0767
Application No. 09/382,381
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 13, 19 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a non-
enabling disclosure.
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
8 and 10 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Denninger. In this instance, we are in full agreement with
appellants' arguments as set forth on pages 11 through 14 of the
brief. While it is true that Denninger is concerned with
providing a radar altimeter augmented GPS aircraft navigation
system that uses the AGL (above ground level) altitude
information from the radar altimeter to provide more accurate
navigation information to the pilot during the approach and
landing phases, and thus provides an added degree of redundancy
and an additional source of navigational information for use in
conjunction with other pre-existing aircraft navigation
instruments (e.g., inertial, ILS, TACAN, etc.) which permits the
aircraft to execute precision approaches and landings, we find
nothing in Denninger which recognizes or addresses the specific
antenna spacing problem confronted and solved by appellants.
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007