Appeal No. 97-3144
Application No. 08/372,390
As far as claim 21 is concerned, reliance upon Gibson
does not appear to be necessary inasmuch as this claim is not
limited to engines, let alone wing-mounted engines, or fuel
tanks of any type. In any case, Gibson implicitly recognizes
the advantage of retractable wings in the event that Pedrick’s
wings are not found to be “retractable” despite Pedrick’s
express teaching that the wings are retractable.
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the
combined teachings of the applied references would have
suggested the subject matter of claim 21 to one of ordinary
skill in the art to warrant a conclusion of obviousness under
the test set forth in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, we will sustain the §
103 rejection of claim 21 and
also the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 18,
20 and 22 through 24 which, as noted supra, stand or fall with
claim 21.
We will also sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 19. In
the Pedrick reference, the lengths of the side fuselages 2 and
3 are clearly shown to be shorter than the length of the
central fuselage 1. In any case, even if Pedrick’s clear
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007