Appeal No. 2002-0187
Application No. 09/100,792
Claims 1 through 9, 11 through 25 and 27 through 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
McManus in view of Noser.
Claims 10 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McManus in view of Noser and Trias.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 13 and 15)
and the answer (paper number 14) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
36.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 4)
concerning the teachings of McManus. The two aircraft in the
simulator disclosed by McManus are controlled in parallel via two
parallel sets of programs (Figure 2; pages 507 and 508). The
examiner states (answer, page 4) that “it is not clear that these
[aircraft] can or do operate at different rates.” In the absence
of any disclosure in McManus directed to operation rates of the
two aircraft, we hereby decline to speculate as to the operation
rates of the two aircraft. We likewise agree with the examiner’s
findings (answer, page 4) concerning the variable attention rate
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007