Appeal No. 2006-1669 Page 5
Application No. 10/476,257
retracted, its extended position 12a or 14a during cruise, and its retracted position when the
aircraft is undergoing severe flight loads.
The examiner considers Allen’s winglet to correspond to the “winglet” recited in claim 1
and the aileron illustrated thereon in Figure 1 but not numbered or discussed by Allen to be a
control surface meeting the limitations of the “air flow control arrangement …” limitation of
claim 1 (answer, p. 4). As discussed more fully below, we agree with the examiner.
The appellant argues throughout the brief and reply brief that Allen’s winglet, despite
Allen’s use of the terminology “winglet,” is not in fact a “winglet” as one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that term, because it is not fixed in an upturned or vertical position on the
wing. Even accepting the definition of “winglet” as “a small, nearly vertical surface mounted at
the tip of an aircraft wing to decrease drag resistance” urged by the appellant on page 8 of the
brief, we find nothing in this definition that requires the winglet to be fixedly mounted to the
wing as the appellant contends. Furthermore, even assuming that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have an understanding that winglets are typically upturned surfaces fixed at the tip of an
aircraft wing, Allen evidences a recognition in the art at the time of the appellant’s invention that
winglets need not be fixedly mounted and that, indeed, there are advantages to winglets which
can be moved between upturned and extended positions during flight. Although not relied upon
by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Allen, the patents to Daude
(US Pat. No. 4,457,479, issued July 3, 1984) and Brix (US Pat. No. 6,345,790, issued February
12, 2002) alluded to by the examiner on page 8 of the answer are further evidence of the
recognition in the art at the time of the appellant’s invention of the advantages of moveably
mounting winglets or portions of winglets on aircraft wings.
Allen’s disclosed improvement of an actuator and control system for moving the winglet
between retracted or folded and extended positions no more detracts from it being a “winglet”
than does appellant’s improvement of a control surface on the winglet detract from it being a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007