Appeal No. 2003-0622 Page 4
Application No. 09/974,545
A method for preventing hijacking of an aircraft, comprising
operations of:
providing a hijacking intervention module aboard an aircraft having an
autopilot system;
the module sensing a predetermined override input;
responsive to the sensing of the predetermined override input, the module
performing operations comprising:
deactivating on-board control of predetermined aircraft flight
systems;
deactivating on-board control of the autopilot system;
directing the autopilot system to fly the aircraft to a landing.
It is the examiner’s view that claims 1, 18, 33, 34 and 55, which constitute all of
the independent claims, are anticipated2 by Borthayre ‘842 or, in the alternative, would
have been obvious3 over Borthayre ‘842 in view of Auto 737. The cornerstone of the
Section 102 rejection is the examiner’s finding that Borthayre ‘842 discloses and/or
teaches all of the subject matter required by the independent claims to one of ordinary
skill in the art, considering that although Borthayre ‘842 does not expressly disclose an
autopilot system such would have been inherent in the claimed aircraft. As an
alternative, the examiner enters a Section 103 rejection in which he concludes that if an
autopilot is not considered to inherently be present in the aircraft, one of ordinary skill in
2Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007