Appeal No. 2006-0486 Page 3
Application No. 10/300,916
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected over Derrien ‘481 in view of
Thorpe and Hartley;
Claims 1, 2, 10 and 18-21 are rejected over Derrien ‘481 in
view of Thorpe and Blackburn; and
Claims 27-30 are rejected over Holloway in view of Derrien
‘481, Thorpe and Blackburn.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections, we refer to the brief and reply brief as well as to
the answer and to the final office action mailed January 30, 2004
(which is alluded to on page 3 of the answer) for a complete
exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we cannot sustain any of
the rejections advanced by the examiner in this appeal.
Concerning the § 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 22-25, the
examiner’s obviousness position is expressed on pages 2 and 3 of
the final office action in the following manner:
Derrien et al. [i.e., Derrien ‘030] teaches an
aircraft landing gear that retracts laterally but is
silent on the use of an aircraft noise reduction
apparatus to deflect air away from noise inducing
components of the landing gear. However, Williams
teaches a cover or noise reduction apparatus 9
positioned in a spaced apart relationship with the
landing gear and is connected to the leg 4, 5, and 3
(but not completely surrounding the noise inducing
parts such as elements 1 and 5) and inherently reduces
noise is well known in the art. Further, to provide
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007