Appeal No. 2003-0622 Page 9
Application No. 09/974,545
a logic circuit of multiple interconnected electrically conductive elements configured to
cause a module on board the aircraft to perform the same operations recited in claim
18 to prevent hijacking of the aircraft.
Independent claim 34 and dependent claims 35, 36, 39, 41, 44 and 50 also
stand rejected as being anticipated by Borthayre ‘842 or, in the alternative, as being
unpatentable over Borthayre ‘842 in view of Auto 737. Claim 34 is directed to an anti-
hijacking system for use “in an aircraft,” which we interpret to mean that all of the
components are located on board the aircraft. The claimed system comprises a
transceiver to communicate with remote stations, a manual panic input, and “a
manager, coupled to the transceiver and the manual panic input, programmed to
perform operations” which include “directing the autopilot system to fly the aircraft to a
landing.” As was explained above, there is no teaching in Borthayre ‘842 that this step
be accomplished by the same on-board manager that senses the panic override and
deactivates on-board control of aircraft systems and on-board control of the autopilot,
nor do we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to modify the
Borthayre ‘842 system to do so. The rejections of claims 34-36, 39, 41, 44 and 50
under Sections 102 and 103 therefore are not sustained.
Independent claim 55 recites an anti-hijacking system “for use in an aircraft”
having an autopilot system, and sets forth the invention in terms of first means for
communicating with remote stations, second means for receiving manual panic input,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007