Honeywell Intern. v. Universal Avionics Systems

493 F.3d 1358
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided August 10, 2007·No. 2006-1406·Published

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Honeywell Intern. v. Universal Avionics Systems, 493 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

493 F.3d 1358 (Honeywell Intern. v. Universal Avionics Systems) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.