Appeal No. 96-2477
Application 08/345,292
device is not merely an airplane. Rather, Hall is directed to a
land component, an automobile, that may be mated to a flight
component in order to convert the land component into an
airplane. The modifications to Hall’s components, and in
particular automobile component B, that would be required in
order to adapt it for water operation would appear to be
significant and would certainly go beyond merely providing
pontoons of the wings of flight component A. Precisely why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
Hall’s land vehicle, given that it is known generally to provide
pontoons on an aircraft to adapt it to water landing, and how
this is to be accomplished, have not been adequately explained by
the examiner and, in our opinion, would not have been obvious
based on the applied reference teachings.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable over Hall in view of Henrichsen or Sanders is
affirmed with respect to claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-16 and 18-20 but is
reversed with respect to claims 4, 5, 12 and 17.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007