Appeal No. 97-3144
Application No. 08/372,390
In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) and In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137,
140 (CCPA 1978).
With regard to claim 21, appellant does not contest the
examiner’s finding that Pedrick meets the recitation in clause
“a” of a plurality of sidewardly joined longitudinally
extending fuselages. Furthermore, the recitation of
connecting passages in clause “a” is also met by Pedrick for
the reasons stated supra.
In any event, appellant has not contested the examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide
Pedrick’s fuselages with connecting passages.
Pedrick also expressly discloses that the wings of the
aircraft are retractable to meet the limitation in clause “b”
of claim 21 (see page 2, lines 118-120, of the Pedrick
specification). In this regard, the limitation in clause “b”
is broad enough to read on Pedrick’s retractable fan type
wings. Claim 21 thus differs from Pedrick by reciting the
canards in clause “c” and possibly the tail plane in clause
“d”.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007