Appeal No. 2003-0552
Application 09/190,318
Fernandez which is considered to measure the relative movement of
the control member (12) with respect to a trim means (34). The
examiner further contends that
This is evident because sensor (26) measures the movement of
the control member (12) with respect to the frame of the
vehicle. Also, from figure 2, it is clear that trim means
(34) is fixedly attached to the frame of the vehicle. This
makes sense since both the sensor and the trim means need to
be attached to some structure that provides a frame of
reference for the vehicle. Since the trim means (34) is on
the frame and the sensor (26) is measuring relative movement
of the control member (12) in relation to the frame, the
sensor(26) has to also be measuring relative movement of the
control member (12) relative to the trim means (34).
Like appellant, we are of the opinion that the APA and
Fernandez are not combinable in the manner urged by the examiner
so as to result in the apparatus defined in claims 19, 23, 27 and
31 on appeal. Even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to
attempt to combine a sensor like that seen at (26) in the fly-by-
wire system of Fernandez with a mechanically-based system
including a control intended to be subject to the action of a
pilot of a rotary-wing aircraft of the type set forth in the APA,
we see no basis for the examiner’s conclusion that the parameter
measured by such a sensor (26) associated with a control like
that of the APA would be “relative movement of said control with
respect to the position of the trim means” acting on said
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007