Appeal 2006-3426
Application 10/189,814
Accordingly, we will sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 4 through 6
and 24 through 26.
For claim 30 Appellants contend (Br. 16-17) that Kubbat fails to
disclose a symbol associated with an indicator of the direction through
which the aircraft should pass through the boundary depicted by the symbol.
Specifically, Appellants contend (Br. 17) that disks 25-30 illustrate the
predicted path and not the boundaries around a selected flight path, and
flight path director 39 fails to include an indication of direction. Further,
Appellants contend (Reply Br. 3) that element 62 shows a runway with no
indication of a direction through which the aircraft should pass through the
boundary depicted by the symbol. We agree that Kubbat fails to satisfy the
limitations of claim 30. Lines 32 through 38 and frame 39, which indicate
the boundaries through which the aircraft should pass, do not have
associated therewith an indicator of direction. Since Kubbat fails to disclose
an element of claim 30, Kubbat cannot anticipate the claim. Therefore, we
will not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 30.2
2 We note that the reference to "the first and second symbols" in the second
to last line of claim 30 lacks antecedent basis.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013