Appeal 2006-3426
Application 10/189,814
with the selected flight path and symbols 32, 36, and 391, the triangular
symbols will likewise align with the selected path. Since the pilot's goal is
to follow the predetermined flight path, the pilot will generally remain on
that path. Accordingly, when the pilot maintains the predetermined course,
the predicted flight path and the selected flight path will be one and the
same, and symbols 39 and 32 through 38 and symbols 25 through 31 will all
follow the selected flight path, thereby satisfying the limitation of first and
second symbols, respectively, in independent claims 1, 17, and 21. Since
Appellants do not present any other arguments for independent claims 1, 17,
and 21, nor for claims 2, 3, 7, 11 through 16, 18 through 20, 22, 23, and 27,
dependent therefrom, we will sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 3, 7, 11 through 23, and 27.
Regarding claims 4 through 6 and 24 through 26, Appellants contend
(Br. 16 and Reply Br. 3) that Kubbat fails to disclose a series of targets as
required by the claims. Appellants contend (Br. 16) that Kubbat's element
39 is only a single target, not a series of targets. However, elements 39 and
32 through 38 provide a series of targets through which the aircraft should
fly to follow the selected flight path. Lines 32 through 38 are analogous to
goalposts through which a football must pass for a field goal in a football
game. Thus, Kubbat's pairs of lines 32 through 38, forming the channel
through which the aircraft should pass, along with frame 39, satisfy the
claim recitation of a series of targets through which the aircraft should fly.
1 We find nothing in independent claims 1, 17, and 21 that would preclude a
pilot's control input to make the predicted flight path correspond with the
selected flight path.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013