onecle

Ex Parte Drost - Page 1





                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                             
                                               __________                                                   
                           BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                               
                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                               __________                                                   
                                      Ex parte STUART K. DROST                                              
                                               __________                                                   
                                            Appeal 2007-2888                                                
                                          Application 11/017,602                                            
                                         Technology Center 3600                                             
                                               __________                                                   
                                        Decided: October 26, 2007                                           
                                               __________                                                   
               Before TONI R. SCHEINER, NANCY J. LINCK, and RICHARD M.                                      
               LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                      
               LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                       
                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                 
                      This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of                   
               claims 1-5 and 7-18.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We                       
               affirm.                                                                                      
                                      STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                 
                      The claims are directed to a noise reduction system for aircraft cabins.              
               “An acoustic absorption system according to the present invention fills voids                
               between airframe frame members within an airframe section with a close                       
               fitting foam portion. The foam portions are each interference or ‘force’ fit                 
               into the voids to completely fill each of the frame voids” (Specification  8).              




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013