Appeal No. 2006-0486 Page 8
Application No. 10/300,916
recitation of a noise-reducing attachment “in a spaced apart
relationship with the landing gear.”
Resolution of this claim interpretation issue is pivotal to
a determination of whether the appealed claims are patentable.
For example, if the appealed claims are directed to a noise
reduction apparatus by itself with no requirement that the
apparatus be in combination with a retractable landing gear or be
in a spaced apart relationship with the landing gear, it is
questionable whether such claims would be distinguishable from
Thorpe. This is because the fairing/debris protector 1 of Thorpe
is disclosed as possessing a wind noise reducing capability
(e.g., see lines 17-20 in column 1 and lines 14-17 in column 2).
It is true that fairing 1 is attached in such a manner as to
snugly fit against the surface of the strut 2 (e.g., see lines 5-
6 in column 4). Nevertheless, this disclosure may or may not be
relevant to the question of claim novelty and nonobviousness
depending upon what, if any, limiting effect is achieved by the
“in a spaced apart relationship” recitation of the independent
claims.
Even if the appealed claims are interpreted to require some
type of “spaced apart relationship” with a retractable landing
gear, the claims still may not be patentable over the prior art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007