Appeal No. 2005-0050
Application No. 10/143,261
avionics indicators (see column 6, line 28, through column 7,
line 22), the instructor’s console includes some of the same
avionics indicators (see column 7, lines 23 through 40), and the
computer includes a program that provides the desired
relationship between the controls, the indicators and aircraft
operating conditions (see column 9, lines 3 through 19). Of
particular interest in this appeal is the inclusion in the
instructor’s console of buttons 114 through 127 which “permit the
instructor to introduce a number of simulated emergencies which
may arise during a flight” (column 7, lines 55 through 57).
Hladky describes a number of different emergencies which can be
simulated by these buttons (see column 7, line 57, through column
8, line 31).
As framed and argued by the appellant, the dispositive issue
in the appeal is whether Hladky teaches or would have suggested a
pilot training gauge simulator meeting the recitation in claim 1
of the “means . . . for varying the time duration from initiation
of a simulation and before initiation of the simulated
malfunction.”
The examiner acknowledges that this limitation is in means-
plus-function format and hence must be construed under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, as covering the corresponding structure
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007