Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
overcome these deficiencies, the examiner looks to Thornberg.
Thornberg discloses a system for facilitating the remote
control of a vehicle, e.g., a torpedo, by allowing the operator
to select a desired frame of reference and converting the
operator’s control inputs to account for the orientation of the
vehicle relative to the selected frame of reference.
In proposing to combine Bessacini and Thornberg to reject
claims 1 and 12, the examiner submits that it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art “to use the conversions of Thornberg et
al. in the invention of Bessacini because such modification would
provide for controlling torpedo’s [sic] for underwater delivery
of ordinance” (final rejection, page 4).
In short, there is nothing in Thornberg’s disclosure of a
“post-launch” vehicle remote control system which would have
suggested modifying Bessacini’s “pre-launch” programmed vehicle
control system so as to include the second Cartesian coordinate
system and conversion features required by claims 1 and 12. The
only motivation for combining these disparate teachings so as to
arrive at the subject matter claimed stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellants’ own
disclosure.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007