Appeal No. 2003-0552
Application 09/190,318
control, as in appellant’s claims before us on appeal. Nor did
the examiner in the final rejection provide any cogent reasoning
to support such a conclusion. Figures 5 and 6 of Fernandez
referred to by the examiner and the specification of Fernandez at
column 7, lines 18-67, also referenced by the examiner provide no
apparent support for the examiner’s stated position.
Moreover, the examiner’s belated comments in the paragraph
bridging pages 3 and 4 of the answer regarding mounting of the
sensor to the frame of the aircraft and also “the trim means
(34)” to the frame of the aircraft, along with the conclusion
that this arrangement is somehow responsive to the limitations
added by claims 19, 23, 27 and 31 are, for the reasons set forth
in appellant’s reply brief, untenable.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007