Appeal No. 97-3144
Application No. 08/372,390
It also is well established that while a disclosure may
be inoperative or non-enabling as to some of its features, its
effectiveness as a reference is not removed as to other
features which are clearly operative. In re Shepherd, 172
F.2d 560, 564, 80 USPQ 495, 497 (CCPA 1949). In the present
case, even if it is assumed arguendo that the Pedrick
reference does not contain an enabling disclosure for flying
the multi-fuselage aircraft over oceans at the low altitudes
ranging from 100 to 200 ft. and at speeds ranging between 300
and 400 knots, such a disclosure is not required to practice
appellant’s claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no reversible error in
the examiner’s reliance on Pedrick to support his holding of
obviousness.
Turning now to the obviousness issue, appellant has
stated on page 2 of his main brief that claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9,
13, 15, 18 and 20 through 24 have been argued as a group. We
will therefore select claim 21 as being representative of this
group, with the result that the remaining claims in the group
shall stand or fall with the representative claim. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) as amended effective April 21, 1995. See also
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007