Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
Torkelson 5,060,471 Oct. 29, 1991
Morse 5,260,525 Nov. 09, 1993
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method of
forming and installing an acoustic panel to an aircraft
structure, as well as the acoustic panel, per se. According to
appellants' specification, "the present invention obviates the
need for 'thru-bolt' acoustic panel retention means" (page 1,
paragraph four).
Appealed claims 3, 9, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 13-17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by either
Birbragher or Dhoore. Claims 3 and 9-12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted prior
art or Torkelson in view of Morse. Also, claims 3, 8, 9, 18 and
19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over either Birbragher or Dhoore in view of Morse.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
set forth in the principal and reply briefs on appeal. However,
we find that the examiner's rejections under § 112, § 102 and
§ 103 are free of reversible error. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007