Appeal No. 96-2477
Application 08/345,292
Specifically, it is apparent that a detachable wing design would
greatly facilitate the replacement of a damaged wing component,
as well as provide the capability of removing the wings for
easier storage and transport. Based on these considerations, we
conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide the flight component A of Hall with
detachable wings in order to take advantage of the self evident
benefits such construction provides. Compare In re Heinrich, 268
F.2d 753, 756, 122 USPQ 388, 390 (CCPA 1959) (substitution of one
type of spring construction for another considered to be matter
of choice or engineering design where advantages and
disadvantages of each are apparent). Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 14 and 19.
We will also sustain the standing § 103 rejection of
dependent claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 20 since Hall discloses
(1) flight component A detachably secured to the fuselage, as
called for in claims 2 and 8, (2) a control and instrument panel
53 on the flight component A accessible through opening 64 when
the components A and B are properly assembled (column 9, lines
45-50), as called for in claims 6, 15 and 20, (3) an
undercarriage landing gear means in the form of wheels 6 and 8
partially recessed in the fuselage, as called for in claim 11,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007