Appeal No. 97-3144
Application No. 08/372,390
Beteille, however, expressly teaches the combination of
canards 9 and a tail plane 6 for the advantageous purpose of
relieving the airfoils of strains as discussed in column 1,
lines 56-62, of the Beteille specification. This teaching
would have been ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in
the art to provide Pedrick’s multi-fuselage aircraft with
canards and a tail plane. We also agree that it would have
been obvious to provide Pedrick’s aircraft with canards for
the reasons stated by the examiner on page 4 of the answer.
Furthermore, since canards and tail planes are well known in
the aircraft art, it follows that their advantages are also
well known to further support the obviousness of equipping
Pedrick’s aircraft with such components. In this regard, the
skilled artisan is presumed to know something about the art
apart from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby,
308 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
With regard to the argument made on page 6 of the main
brief, there is no evidence that Pedrick’s aircraft would not
benefit from reduced strain and/or increased control. In any
case, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence.
See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d at 1405, 181 USPQ at 646.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007