Appeal No. 2005-0050
Application No. 10/143,261
let alone varying, of the time duration from initiation of a
simulation and before initiation of the simulated malfunction.
Even under the examiner’s hypothesis as to how the HOLD GEAR
button 115 would function, the time duration from initiation of a
simulation and before initiation of the simulated malfunction
would essentially depend on the actions of the pilot/trainee
rather than on actuation of the button. Thus, the examiner’s
determination that this button has identity of function with the
“means . . . for varying the time duration from initiation of a
simulation and before initiation of the simulated malfunction”
recited in claim 1 is unsound.
In light of the foregoing, the fair teachings of Hladky do
not justify a conclusion that the subject matter recited in
independent claim 1 would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2 through 8 and 10, as
being unpatentable over Hladky.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007