Appeal No. 1999-2831 Page 4
Application No. 08/703,435
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant in the brief
and reply brief and the examiner in the final rejection and
answer. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 6 to 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, recites a
deployment mechanism for moving an aircraft auxiliary airfoil
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007