Appeal No. 2006-0970
Application No. 10/293,826
Foote provides the motivation for applying this form of energy provision to Hagen’s
aircraft as being well known in the art
The concept of powering an aircraft with terrestrially radiated
electromagnetic energy has received a great deal of attention. [See col. 1
lines 20-22]
Accordingly, we reject claims 1, 7, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable as anticipated by Hagen, and independent claim 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable as obvious over Hagen in view of Foote.
CONCLUSION
To summarize,
• The rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being unpatentable as
directed to non-operable subject matter lacking utility for such utility as is
asserted being incredible is not sustained.
• The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
unpatentable as failing to enable the use of the claimed subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention, is not sustained.
• The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious
over Moore in view of Naudin 1, The Lifters Experiments or Naudin 2, How to
Build and Replicate Yourself the Lifter1 Experiment, or Brown 1 and Kantrowitz
is not sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007