Appeal No. 2003-0552
Application 09/190,318
prior art that is admitted to because such modification
would provide some type of input that would be necessary for
the control computer to provide load feel back to the pilot.
With particular regard to dependent claims 19, 23, 27 and 31
on appeal, the examiner further recognizes that the APA does not
disclose a sensor which measures “relative movement” of a control
(3) intended to be subject to the action of a pilot with respect
to the position of a trim means (13) acting on the control. In
this instance, the examiner is of the view that Fernandez teaches
a sensor which measures relative movement of a control intended
to be subject to the action of a pilot with respect to the
position of a trim means “in figure 6” and that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention to use the teachings of Fernandez in the
APA “because such modification would provide an aircraft control
with better load feel as stated in Fernandez” (final rejection,
page 4).
Additional insight into the examiner’s position regarding
the obviousness rejection of claims 19, 23, 27 and 31 is found in
the examiner’s answer (pages 3-4), wherein the examiner more
clearly makes note that it is the position sensor (26) of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007