Appeal 2007-1557
Application 10/943,536
actuators from independent power supplies, it also would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to provide electrical energy for storage to first and
second banks of capacitors from independent sources as required by claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Appellant contends that Fangio, at best, discloses
using capacitively stored energy to place an actuator in a fail-safe position and then
to cease all activity and Corio does not disclose power backup systems (Br. 12).
The Examiner correctly responds that the capacity of the system is a design choice
based on application and Appellant admits that one of skill in the art would
appreciate the choice of system capacity (Answer 6 (citing Specification 6:4-24)).
With respect to claim 13, Appellant argues that the combination of Corio
and Fangio fails to disclose (1) the capacitively stored electrical energy from the
back-up system is used for commanded braking of an aircraft; and (2) the supply of
capacitively stored electrical energy from the electrical energy back-up system is
made without switching between the electrical energy back-up system and the
main supply source (Br. 12-13). Appellant argues that the combination of Corio
and Fangio would not provide for commanded braking because the combination
would require the brakes of an aircraft to be placed in a fail-safe condition.
Appellant is incorrect. Corio discloses emergency braking in response to pedal
commands from a pilot, (Corio, col. 8, ll. 8-20), and Fangio is relied on solely for
using a capacitor as a source of back-up power and not for placing an aircraft
braking system into a fail-safe condition.
The Examiner's arguments regarding the “without switching” limitation are
based on a faulty construction of the term. Applying the proper construction of
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013