Appeal No. 2003-0371 Page 3
Application No. 09/465,941
to the Brief (Paper No. 15) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 18) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
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 and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 1
An aircraft assembly jig loading system comprising:
a support member;
a plurality of elongate members, each of said elongate members is
attached at one end to said support member in spaced apart positions
along said support member, each elongate member hanging downward
from said support member; and
at least one releasable holder on each elongate member, the holders
positioned to support at least one aircraft stringer at spaced apart
positions to enable the stringer to be supported at an aircraft jig for
loading thereon.
The Rejection Under Section 102(b)
The examiner has rejected independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 9-11
and 14-16 as being anticipated by Woods. Anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007