Appeal No. 2004-1150
Application No. 09/924,490
Thus, it is not necessary in modifying Ellzey in view of Thomas to
reconfigure or rearrange the sheets A and/or B in order to meet
this claim limitation.
As to the argument that Ellzey only teaches welding the same
piece of material to itself and therefore teaches away from welding
at least two components together, we note that sheets A and B of
Ellzey comprise two components or pieces that are welded together.
Appellants’ comments on page 19 of the main brief directed to
claims 14, 18, 38, 39, 41, 50, 52, 54 and 66 urging that these
claims should be separately considered have been noted. Concerning
claim 14, the fuselage and/or wing structures of Ellzey are
considered to be constructed of components of double curvature. As
to claims 18 and 41, in that Ellzey states that the broad
principles of the invention contemplate working any suitable number
of parts or pieces of metal to form the structure (column 2, lines
53-58), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to form the outer sheet or skin of at least two panels. Claims
38, 50, 52, 54 and 66, directed to an airframe including at least
one structural airframe component, are clearly met by the fuselage
structure of Ellzey. Likewise, claim 39, directed to an aircraft
wing including at least one structural airframe component, is
clearly met by the wing structure of Ellzey.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007