Appeal No. 96-2477
Application 08/345,292
including a tandem-engine propulsion module (claims 7-12), a
method of powering a fixed-wing aircraft (claims 13-17), and a
method of providing a fixed-wing aircraft with tandem-engine
propulsion (claims 18-20). Independent claims 1, 7, 13 and 18
are representative of the appealed subject matter, and copies
thereof, as they appear in the appendix to appellant’s brief, are
appended to this opinion.2
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Sanders 1,855,652 Apr. 26, 1932
Henrichsen et al. 1,874,523 Aug. 30, 1932
(Henrichsen)
Hall 2,619,301 Nov. 25, 1952
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hall in view of Henrichsen or Sanders.
Hall, the primary reference, pertains to a flight component
A adapted to be releasably attached to a ground vehicle B to
permit the ground vehicle to be airborne. The flight component A
2We note several instances in the appealed claims of terms
which lack a clear antecedent. For example, “the wing means”
(claim 2, line 3 and claim 5, line 2); “the engine means” (claim
3, line 2) and “the propellers” (claim 3, line 2) do not have a
clear antecedent. While these deficiencies do not obscure the
metes and bounds of the claims, in the event of further
prosecution before the examiner, corrective action should be
taken.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007