Appeal No. 2004-1457
Application No. 09/696,299
468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Adams (answer, page 4).
Appellants argue that the examiner has improperly interpreted the
claim terminology “measurement of flight parameters” to include
the measurement of fatigue and fracture characteristics of
airframe components as taught by Adams. Appellants argue that
the definition of “flight parameters” as defined in the
specification explicitly excludes the applicability of Adams
(brief, pages 4-6). The examiner responds that when the claim
language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, then
the claimed invention is met by Adams (answer, pages 8-10).
Appellants respond that the invention of claims 1 and 2 is not
met by any set of physical property values of aircraft, and that
evaluation of fatigue damage to aircraft is not applicable to the
evaluation of flight usage (reply brief).
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1 and 2 for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007