Appeal No. 1998-1946
Application No. 08/629,991
that the term “airfoil” is used in appellant’s specification.
Consistent with appellant’s specification (see page 9, lines
23-24, page 14, line 17 and page 15, lines 22-23) an airfoil
surface is interpreted to be one that provides lift.
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the
subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art from the collective teachings of the
applied references under the test set forth in In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 13 and
also the rejection of dependent claims 16 and 17 which stand
or fall with claim 13 (see page 3 of the main brief and page 1
of the reply brief).
However, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 15
and 18. Both of these claims recite the step of forming
visible indicia on a translucent plastic (namely polyvinyl
chloride) to produce an optically perceived pattern. The
Walker patent is silent as to the nature of the features on
the wings 28. However, even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument that these features constitute indicia, there is no
suggestion in Walker or any of the other applied references of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007