Appeal No. 2006- 1669
Application No. 10/476,257
The appellant’s argument (request, pp. 7-8) that this panel failed to properly
construe the limitation “air flow control arrangement thereon by means of which
lift generated by the winglet can be varied” is incorrect. In accordance with 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, this panel determined that the structure described in
appellant’s specification for performing the function of controlling air flow to vary
the lift generated by the winglet, and thus corresponding to the “air flow control
arrangement thereon by means of which lift generated by the winglet can be
varied” limitation of claim 1, “is the control surface (i.e., flaps, spoilers, trip
device, doors, louvers) shown in Figures 5-11” (decision, p. 6). This determination
is supported by the appellant’s specification (e.g., p. 2 and p. 4, ll. 23-24) and the
appellant’s statement on page 13 of the reply brief to that effect. As further
explained in our decision (p. 6), the aileron depicted on the rear of the winglet 12
in Allen’s Figure 1 is a control surface, and in particular a flap or spoiler, the
structure described in appellant’s specification corresponding to the “air flow
control arrangement thereon by means of which lift generated by the winglet can
be varied” limitation.
The appellant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the request address
limitations not included in claim 1 and, in particular, not included in the “air flow
control arrangement thereon by means of which lift generated by the winglet can
be varied” limitation of claim 1. The structure identified in appellant’s
specification (p. 2 and p. 4) as the “control arrangement” is the control surface
(e.g., flap, trip device, spoiler, etc.). While such control arrangement may be
linked to a control system of the aircraft, such control system is neither described
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007