Appeal No. 2003-1379
Application No. 09/769,334
proffered no evidence to demonstrate that the open cell
polyurethane foam taught by Allen cannot perform the claimed
function.
The appellant argues that Allen does not teach or suggest
that “cells of the foam material not occupied with fluid and
residual volume of the [fuel] tank are filled with a gas” as
required by claim 3. See the Brief, page 8 together with claim
3. We do not agree. We find that Allen teaches employing its
open cell foam in a fuel tank filled with a volatile fuel (gas).
See column 4, lines 21-24 and column 5, lines 14-18. It can be
inferred from this teaching that the foam cells and the fuel tank
volume not occupied by fluid in the tank are filled with a gas.
The appellant argues that the applied prior art references
do not teach or suggest having a landing gear structure providing
high primary energy absorption and a fuel tank providing high
secondary energy absorption as required by claim 7. See the
Brief, page 8 and the Reply Brief, page 2. We do not agree. As
indicated supra, the foam material included in the fuel tank
absorbs physical energy. Moreover, the landing gear structure of
the aircraft taught in Beuck, of necessity, provides high primary
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007