Appeal No. 97-3144
Application No. 08/372,390
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to substitute the retractable wings of Gibson for
that of Pedrick since it is providing collapsible
fuel tanks and outboard engines that provides a more
efficient lifting surface. [Answer, pages 4-5]
With regard to claim 19, the examiner concludes in
substance that the teachings of Oliver would have made it
obvious to make the lengths of Pedrick’s side fuselages
shorter than the length of Pedrick’s central fuselage for the
reason stated on page 5 of the answer. With regard to claim
4, the examiner concludes that the teachings of Harrington
“would have been obvious . . . to provide the aircraft of
Pedrick with fuel tanks in recesses . . .” (answer, page 5).
Appellant does not take issue with the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness regarding the provision of
interconnecting passages between the fuselages, perhaps for
the reason that Pedrick discloses the removal of inner
fuselage walls to thereby provide interconnecting passages
between the fuselages. See page 3, lines 3-9, of the Pedrick
specification. Given this disclosure, the limitation
pertaining to the passages is met by Pedrick, making it
unnecessary to conclude that it would have been obvious to
provide Pedrick’s aircraft with such passages.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007