Appeal No. 2003-0622 Page 5
Application No. 09/974,545
the art would have found it obvious to provide “well known autopilot systems” to reduce
pilot workload in view of the teachings of Auto 737 (Answer, pages 4 and 5).4 The
appellant argues that Borthayre ‘842 does not disclose or teach an autopilot system,
and even if such a device were present, Borthayre ‘842 does not anticipate the claims,
nor are the claims obvious in view of the combination of Borthayre ‘842 and Auto 737,
for lack of teaching in both cases that the autopilot is directed to fly the aircraft to a
landing by the same module that deactivates on-board controls and deactivates on-
board control of the autopilot upon receipt of the hijacking signal.
Borthayre ‘842 is directed to a system for thwarting the hijacking of an aircraft.
As we understand the Borthayre ‘842 system, some sort of a module or the like aboard
the aircraft, which is not described, senses a predetermined indication of a hijacking
(translation, page 2), such as the accelerated heart rate resulting from the fear or
emotions of persons on the aircraft being threatened by the hijackers (translation,
page 4). Upon receiving such an indication, this module causes “the complete
disengagement of the pilot from to [sic] the rudder bar, control column, and the air
brake, with the control tower taking complete and exclusive control of these devices”
(translation, page 2). Borthayre ‘842 goes on to explain that the aircraft controls are
operated by the control tower “independently by radio . . . by a robotic device that
4We note, however, that Auto 737 is directed only to an automatic system for precision
approaches and landings.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007