Appeal No. 2005-2712
Application No. 10/408,302
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art Tang patent, and to the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) will be sustained.
Our reasons for that determination follow.
In the examiner’s view (final rejection, pages 2-3) Tang discloses a flight simulation
method and apparatus like that broadly set forth in the claims on appeal. More
specifically, the examiner has determined that Tang discloses a flight simulation method
and apparatus with an input for receiving data at least partially defining a mission route
(col. 4, lines 30-40), and a processing element that automatically determines an area
containing the mission route for which terrain data is required, automatically divides the
area into a plurality of regions based upon the mission route, and determines a
respective resolution of the terrain source data for each region (col. 21, lines 35-49). In
addition, the examiner has found that Tang discloses a flight simulation method and
apparatus that receives data defining an aircraft platform and data regarding different
types of points along the mission route, and uses the processing element to determine
the area and resolution of regions within the area based at least partially upon the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007