Appeal No. 2001-1702
Application 09/186,429
in the art. In this regard, we share appellants’ position that
the examiner has engaged in the use of impermissible hindsight in
attempting to modify the stabilizer arrangement resulting from
the combination of Borseth and Berne by relying on the entirely
different stabilizer system of Carlsen. The sheer size, posi-
tioning, and manner of operation of the horizontal stabilizers in
Carlsen belie the examiner’s assertion (answer, pages 5-6) that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
following the teachings of Carlsen to provide end plates or
horizontal stabilizers on the fins/stabilizers of Borseth as
modified by Berne.
In light of the foregoing, we must refuse to sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 16
through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Borseth in view of Berne and Carlsen.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 3, 6, 9, 12
and 15 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borseth in view
of Berne, Carlsen and Pangalila, we have reviewed the Pangalila
patent, but find ourselves in agreement with appellants’ position
as set forth on pages 9 and 10 of the brief and in the reply
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007