Appeal No. 2006-1669 Page 2
Application No. 10/476,257
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a winglet. A copy of the claims under appeal is set
forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Lavelle 2,557,829 Jun. 19, 1951
Allen 5,988,563 Nov. 23, 1999
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing
subject matter which was not described in the specification so as to convey to one of ordinary
skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the appellant was in possession of the
invention now claimed.
Claims 1-7, 11-15, 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Allen.
Claims 8-10 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Allen in view of Lavelle.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Allen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed March 24,
2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellant's
brief (filed August 24, 2005) and reply brief (filed January 12, 2006) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007