Appeal No. 2006-0486 Page 5
Application No. 10/300,916
deficit even if the landing gear components of Derrien ‘030 were
assumed to have a noise problem which would have been recognized
by those skilled in the art and even if the Williams stream-lined
housing were assumed to possess a noise reducing capability which
would have been recognized by those skilled in art.
This is because nothing in these references or the Thorpe
reference would have suggested that a housing of the type taught
by Williams for a fixed landing gear could be successfully
combined with a retractable landing gear of the type taught by
Derrien ‘030 in such a manner as to effect noise reduction while
permitting landing gear retraction. There is simply no
evidentiary support for the examiner’s conclusion that an artisan
would have found it obvious to somehow modify Williams’ housing
in such a manner as to be applicable to the retractable landing
gear of Derrien ‘030 while performing a noise reducing function.
Indeed, the examiner does not even hypothesize with any
reasonable specificity precisely how the Williams housing would
be modified or precisely where it would be placed on the Derrien
‘030 landing gear.
Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We
hereby reverse, therefore, the examiner’s § 103 rejection of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007