Appeal No. 96-2477
Application 08/345,292
compartment 54 of Hall is located forward of the wings in the
forward portion of the flight component. It is not apparent to
us, and the examiner has not explained, how Hall’s fuel
compartment location forward of the wings discloses or suggests
the centered fore-and-aft fuel compartment locations called for
in claims 4 and 17. In addition, Henrichsen and Sanders are not
relevant to claims 4 and 17 in that they are silent as to the
location of any fuel compartment. In light of the above, we
cannot sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 17,
or claim 5 which depends from claim 4.
We also will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
12, which depends from claim 7 and further requires that the
fuselage is boat like and that outboard stabilization means
depend from the wing means and flanks of the fuselage. In
rejecting this claim, the examiner has taken the position that it
is known in the art to provide wing pontoons to adapt an aircraft
to water landing, and that, accordingly, it would have been
obvious to provide Hall with pontoons. Even if it is assumed
that it is known generally to provide wing pontoons on an
aircraft to adapt it to water landing, the issue here is whether
it would have been obvious to provide Hall’s components A and B
with stabilization means for water operation. Here, Hall’s
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007