Appeal No. 97-3144
Application No. 08/372,390
In support of patentability, appellant first argues that
Pedrick’s disclosure is non-enabling. He also contests the
examiner’s positions of obviousness regarding the Beteille and
Gibson references. In addition, on page 3 of the main brief,
he seems to ignore the examiner’s finding on page 4 of the
answer that Pedrick’s aircraft has a tail plane. He
nevertheless concedes that Beteille discloses the combination
of a tail plane (see page 3 of the main brief) and canards
(see pages 3 and 6 of the main brief).
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s
arguments. As a result, we will sustain the § 103 rejection
of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15 and 18 through 24, but not the
§ 103 rejection of claim 4.
Considering first appellant’s argument that Pedrick lacks
an enabling disclosure, appellant’s main criticism with
Pedrick’s disclosure concerns Pedrick’s objectives or goals of
flying “across the ocean at altitudes ranging from 100 to 200
ft. and at speeds ranging between 300 and 400 knots” (main
brief, page 3).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007