Appeal No. 97-3144
Application No. 08/372,390
showing is not considered to meet the limitation in claim 19,
it is of no moment that appellant may make the lengths of the
side fuselages shorter than the length of the central fuselage
for a reason other than that stated by the examiner (see the
argument on page 7 of the main brief). In this regard, the
law does not require that the references be combined for the
reasons contemplated by appellant. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We cannot, however, sustain the § 103 rejection of claim
4. Harrington’s teaching of mounting fuel tanks in the sides
of the fuselage of a single fuselage aircraft does not suggest
the provision of a fuel tank between the central fuselage and
each side fuselage of Pedrick’s multi-fuselage aircraft.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), the following
new ground of rejection is entered against claims 3, 4 and 6:
Claims 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2
as being indefinite and hence failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant
regards as his invention. Antecedent basis is lacking for the
recitation of “said side fuselages” (claims 3, 4 and 6) and
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007