Filed: Aug. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ERRATA August 10, 2007 Appeal Nos. 2006-1406,-1435 Honeywell International, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. Decided: July 3, 2007 Precedential Opinion Change the opinion as follows: • Replace “the angular direction of an object” on page 8, line 15, with “direction.” • Omit “angular” on page 8, line 16. • Replace “angular direction of the runway line from a point on that runway” on page 8, lines 17–18, with “direction of the runway i
Summary: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ERRATA August 10, 2007 Appeal Nos. 2006-1406,-1435 Honeywell International, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. Decided: July 3, 2007 Precedential Opinion Change the opinion as follows: • Replace “the angular direction of an object” on page 8, line 15, with “direction.” • Omit “angular” on page 8, line 16. • Replace “angular direction of the runway line from a point on that runway” on page 8, lines 17–18, with “direction of the runway it..
More
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ERRATA August 10, 2007 Appeal Nos. 2006-1406,-1435 Honeywell International, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. Decided: July 3, 2007 Precedential Opinion Change the opinion as follows: • Replace “the angular direction of an object” on page 8, line 15, with “direction.” • Omit “angular” on page 8, line 16. • Replace “angular direction of the runway line from a point on that runway” on page 8, lines 17–18, with “direction of the runway itself.” With these changes, the two affected sentences should read as follows: The specification and prosecution history both make clear that the patentees used the term “heading” to refer to direction from a point on a runway. Thus, the “heading of the aircraft” is the direction of the aircraft from a point on a runway, and the “heading of the runway” is the direction of the runway itself.
