Appeal No. 2003-1379
Application No. 09/769,334
motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully improving
the safety of the aircraft during its flight2.
The appellant appears to argue that the open cell
polyurethane foam taught in Allen is not capable of carrying out
the claimed functional limitation relating to controlled
deformation as recited in claims 1, 5 and 8.3 See the Brief,
pages 6 and 8. According to the appellant (Id.), “[t]he core
[open cell polyurethane foam] is said to have ‘an approximate 97
percent void’ and thus it appears that the core would be of very
limited value as an energy absorbing structure.”
We are not persuaded by the appellant’s argument. First, we
cannot distinguish the open cell polyurethane foam taught by
Allen from the claimed open cell foam. Compare claims 1, 5 and 8
with the Allen disclosure mentioned above. The open cell
polyurethane structure taught by Allen, like the claimed open
cell foam, is said to be useful for absorbing physical energy as
2 As acknowledged by the appellant at page 6 of the Brief,
the fuel is pumped into the fuel tanks (60) of Beuck’s aircraft
during its flight.
3 Claim 9, the broadest independent claim in the
application, does not recite the functional limitation in
question.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007