Appeal No. 2006-0486 Page 6
Application No. 10/300,916
claims 1-3 and 22-25 as being unpatentable over Derrein ‘030 in
view of Williams and Thorpe.
The other § 103 rejections formulated by the examiner are
correspondingly deficient. In each of these rejections, the
primary reference (i.e., Derrein ‘481 or Holloway) contains no
disclosure that the retractable landing gear thereof possesses any
noise problem of any kind. Even assuming a noise problem existed
and would have been perceived by those skilled in the art, the
rejection still would be improper for reasons analogous to those
discussed above. That is, the examiner has provided inadequate
evidentiary support for his obviousness conclusion vis-á-vis
combining the applied references in the manner proposed. We
hereby reverse, therefore, each of the other § 103 rejections
which the examiner has formulated and advanced on this appeal.
REMAND
We remand this application to the examiner for the purpose
of reopening prosecution in order to address and resolve on the
written record certain issues relating to patentability of the
appealed claims.2
2These issues were discussed to some extent by appellants’
attorney during the oral hearing of February 7, 2006.
Nevertheless, a remand is appropriate so that the issues
identified hereinafter may be fully addressed on the written
record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007