Appeal No. 2004-1796 Page 7
Application No. 09/682,167
Among the appellants’ arguments in opposition to this rejection is that LG has a
removable nose cone that is jettisoned by the rocket’s ejection charge at apogee, and
therefore this reference fails to meet the limitation that the aerodynamic surfaces of the
rocket are “fixed.” The examiner contends that the nose cone of the LG rocket is not an
“aerodynamic surface.” We do not agree with the examiner’s conclusion, however, for
the nose cone clearly comprises a “surface” of the rocket, and from our perspective this
surface must be “aerodynamic” in order for the rocket to fly properly. Moreover, the
examiner has provided no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider
the nose cone not to be an “aerodynamic surface,” or pointed out where this
shortcoming is remedied by the other references. Thus, the rejection is deficient at this
juncture for failing to teach that all aerodynamic surfaces be fixed. Moreover, it is our
view that modifying the LG rocket so that the nose cone is fixed would cause it not to be
capable of operation in the manner intended.
An additional deficiency in the rejection lies in failing to meet the limitation that
the center of gravity be located at a point less than 60% of the distance from the
Barrowman center of pressure to the center of lateral area. We agree with the
appellants that this placement does not constitute merely the selection of an optimum
value in view of the teachings of Barrowman, because this reference is concerned with
the stability of the rocket in upward flight, and there is no mention of recovering the
rocket by means of the technique of a backwards glide. Thus, we fail to perceive any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007