Appeal 2006-3426
Application 10/189,814
OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 14) that Kubbat fails to disclose "a method of
presenting selected flight path data with first symbols showing boundaries
around the selected flight path and second symbols showing the selected
flight path based on selected flight plan data and aircraft performance data."
Appellants contend (Br. 14-15) that Kubbat's flight path director 39 is the
only symbol showing the selected flight path, as triangular disks 25 through
30 indicate the path the aircraft will follow if it continues on its current path
rather than the path the aircraft should follow. Appellants contend (Reply
Br. 2) that the aircraft in Kubbat "does not follow a particular flight path
unless the pilot causes the aircraft to follow that particular flight path," and,
therefore, does not follow a selected flight path. The Examiner, on the other
hand, asserts (Answer 3) that Kubbat's symbols 32, 36, and 39 show the
boundaries around the path of the aircraft, as recited in independent claims
1, 17, and 21 as first symbols. Further, the Examiner asserts (Answer 3) that
symbols 25 through 31 show the path of the aircraft, as recited in the claims
as second symbols. The issue is whether Kubbat discloses two sets of
symbols which work together to provide a display of the selected flight path.
Kubbat discloses (col. 7, ll. 40-43) that frame 39, as depicted in
Figures 3, 4, and 6, is a flight path director produced on a predetermined
flight path. Further, Kubbat discloses (col. 7, ll. 31-39) that lines 32 to 38,
as depicted in Figures 3 and 4, provide the limits of an approach channel for
landing. Elements 39 and 32 through 38 constitute symbols that show the
boundaries around a selected flight path. Triangular disks 25 through 31
represent the predicted flight path, as pointed out by Appellants (Br. 14-15).
See Kubbat, col. 6, ll. 62-68. However, when the pilot aligns the aircraft
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013