Appeal No. 2003-0239
Application 09/382,437
rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed March
25, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed July 17, 2002) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 9 through 12 will not be sustained.
Our reasons follow.
In rejecting claims 1 and 9 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), the examiner has urged that “Lennard discloses an
external-compression supersonic inlet” (final rejection, page 2)
having a configuration like that set forth in appellants’ claims
on appeal, except that Lennard is silent with regard to the main
wall (20) of the supersonic inlet therein being generally
circumferential. To account for this difference, the examiner
turns to Ferguson, finding that this patent “teaches that a wall
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007