Appeal No. 2003-0622 Page 10
Application No. 09/974,545
and processing means coupled to the first and second means for recognizing the
activation of the second means. The processing means, which would be “in” the
aircraft, receives override signals from one or more remote means via the first means,
and responsive thereto deactivates the on-board control of aircraft systems and on-
board control of the autopilot, and directs the autopilot system to fly the aircraft to a
landing. As was the case with the other independent claims, neither Borthayre ‘842 nor
Borthayre ‘842 together with Auto 737 teach or suggest that the same on-board
processing means that senses the emergency and deactivates the on-board control
systems and on-board control of the autopilot, also directs the autopilot to fly the aircraft
to a landing site. This being the case, we will not sustain either of the rejections of
claim 55.
Claims 5, 6, 16, 31, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 53 stand rejected as being unpatentable
over Borthayre ‘842 in view of Auto 737 and RQ-1, which was applied for teaching that
it was known at the time of the appellant’s invention to provide flight routing and landing
instructions from a remote location. Be that as it may, incorporation of the teachings of
RQ-1 would not overcome the above-noted deficiency in the Borthayre ‘842 reference.
Since all of these claims depend from one of the independent claims whose rejections
we have not sustained, we in turn will not sustain this rejection.
The same reasoning and conclusion applies to the rejection of dependent
claims 12, 15, 27, 30, 37, 49 and 52 on the basis of Borthayre ‘842, Auto 737 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007