Appeal No. 2005-2038
Application No. 09/957,416
Turning lastly to the rejection of claims 1 through 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We also agree with the examiner’s statement of the rejection at
pages 4 and 5 of the Final Rejection such as to representative independent
claim 1 on appeal. The examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 3
through 7 of the answer persuasively address each of appellants’
arguments presented at pages 6 through 8 of the brief.
From our study of both Meyers and Deker, we are equally
unpersuaded that the references respectively teach away from each other
since there is no active discouragement of their combinability stated from
our review of each of them. If anything, the artisan would well consider
them easily combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103. On the one hand, while
Deker does not discuss the optimization of cost functions, the examiner’s
position makes clear that Meyers contains significant teaching with respect
to this highly desirable capability for flight path determinations. Even
though Meyers seems to predominantly discuss lateral or horizontal flight
path travel path determinations there are, contrary to appellants’
arguments, significant discussions and suggestions of doing so in three
dimensions as the responsive arguments portion of the examiner notes. As
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007