Appeal No. 2006- 1669
Application No. 10/476,257
in any detail nor identified as part of the control arrangement. Accordingly, a
control system for controlling the operation of the control surface is not recited in
claim 1.3 Thus, Allen’s failure to describe the control scheme of the aileron
depicted on the winglet 12 is of no moment. Allen’s winglet 12 clearly generates
lift in flight, whether in the folded position or in the extended position, and the
aileron located on such winglet is a control surface that controls air flow by means
of which lift generated by the winglet can be varied, which is all that claim 1
requires.4
The appellant’s argument on page 10 of the request that our decision does
not establish any reason or motivation for combining the Allen and Lavelle
references is incorrect. We explained on page 7 of our decision that the motivation
for providing a passage or slot in the winglet 12 or 14 of Allen from a lower
surface to an upper surface thereof that can be opened to permit passage of air
therethrough for decreasing the distance required for landing as proposed by the
examiner (answer, p. 5) is found “in Lavelle’s teaching that it was well known in
the art at the time of the appellant’s invention to replace or supplement the usual
ailerons with controlled wing slots so that the entire length of the trailing edge of
the wing could be used for landing flaps.” That teaching is found in column 1,
lines 7-12, of Lavelle. The appellant’s contention that “[s]lots and flaps are two
3 While claim 25 recites that the air flow control means is responsive to the load on an aircraft wing, this claim was
not argued separately from claim 1 in the brief, reply brief or supplemental reply brief and thus stands or falls with
claim 1. Claim 24 additionally recites means for sensing loads on an aircraft and that the air flow control means is
responsive to said loads sensing means, but the rejection of claim 24 as being unpatentable over Allen was not
argued in the brief, reply brief or supplemental reply brief and was thus summarily sustained, as explained above.
4 We also note, in this regard, that claim 1 does not require that the variance of lift be accomplished, or, more
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007