Appeal No. 95-4237
Application 07/887,002
device to function in the manner called for in claim 1. In 2
light of these disclosures, the examiner anticipation
rejections based on Anxionnaz, Miller or Eknes are, at best,
speculative. Accordingly, a prima facie case of anticipation
based on Anxionnaz, Miller or Eknes has not been established.
See In re Oelrich, supra.
The § 102 rejection based on Lurz
(rejection (d))
We will sustain this rejection.
Lurz pertains to a method for stabilizing laminar flow
over a disturbance in the surface contour of a body in the
flow, e.g., where sheet metal layers overlap in the surface of
an aircraft wing. This is accomplished by providing a suction
inlet section 6 in the form of a series of small openings in
the body just upstream from the surface disturbance 1 in a
high pressure zone 4, a blowing outlet section 6’ in the form
2With respect to Eknes, while Figure 9 thereof
illustrates fluid flow both into the plenum chamber via holes
13 and out of the plenum chamber via holes 13a, the examiner
is not understood to be relying on this embodiment in his
anticipation rejection. In any event, this embodiment does
not appear to include anything that can be regarded as
corresponding to the transpirational control device required
by claim 1.
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007