Appeal No. 2003-0239
Application 09/382,437
In light of appellants’ disclosure on page 2 of the
specification concerning the three types of supersonic inlets and
that of Lennard at column 2, lines 30-47, addressing the same
three types of inlets, it is clear to us that those skilled in
the art would recognize the external-internal compression
supersonic inlet of Lennard and the external-compression
supersonic inlet claimed by appellants as being distinctly
different types of supersonic inlets with distinctly different
characteristics and designs.
In the face of this recognition in the art, the examiner’s
position on page 4 of the answer that
Lennard’s system clearly discloses that his system is an
external-compression supersonic inlet. Even if Lennard’s
desired embodiment is a “mixed” system, it still is an
“external-compression” inlet. This meets the limitations of
the claims
is totally without foundation. As is the examiner’s further
assertion on page 4 of the answer that “[t]he inlet would still
have functioned as an external-compression inlet with the
combination of Lennard and Ferguson.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007