Appeal No. 97-3144
Application No. 08/372,390
Pedrick in view of Beteille, Gibson and Oliver, and claim 4
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Pedrick in view of Beteille, Gibson and Harrington.
With regard to claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 18 and 20
through 24, the examiner has made the following findings and
conclusions:
Pedrick shows a plurality of fuselages (1-5) of
substantially the same length and of a Boeing 747
(which the freight version has retractable noses to
load and unload cargo through the nose and the
passenger versions have seats and storage
compartments) sidewardly joined, a pair of
retractable wings 4",5" secured to the outward
fuselages, rearwardly mounted tail planes,
connecting skin on the nose of the different
fuselages (the cross-hatched showing in figure 1),
and the central section has at tail and the engines
are indirectly attached thereto. Beteille teaches
providing a jumbo fuselage with a canard control
surface since it reduces the strain on the other
lifting surface. Gibson shows retractable wings
with engines mounted on the wings and fuel tanks
that are collapsible. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to provide the fuselages of
Pedrick with inner-communicating passages since this
would be an obvious expedient for passenger safety
for escape purposes from the inner fuselages and it
is also known that 747 fuselages have nose doors and
would be obvious to so provide Pedrick. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to
provide the aircraft of Pedrick with canard airfoils
as taught by Beteille since it provides more control
and reduces strain on the other lifting surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007