Appeal No. 2003-0239
Application 09/382,437
Like appellants, we also recognize that Ferguson does not
appear to relate to a supersonic inlet at all, but is apparently
directed to an inlet design for subsonic operation of turbojet
engines. Thus, it is questionable whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would even consider modifying the supersonic external-
internal compression inlet of Lennard based on teachings of the
subsonic inlet of Ferguson. Moreover, even if such a
modification as urged by the examiner were to be undertaken,
there is absolutely no basis to conclude that an “external-
compression supersonic inlet” like that claimed by appellants
would be the result.
As a further point, we also share appellants’ views as
expressed in the brief at page 8 and in the reply brief at page
4, regarding the requirement in claim 1 on appeal for the main
wall to have an inner surface formed generally “as a
circumferentially extending portion of a surface of revolution.”
No such main wall inner surface configuration is taught or
suggested in either Lennard or Ferguson.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007