Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 19
Application No. 10/068,243
Turning to the Declaration of the inventors, Bryan Spiess,
and of John Dallum, we find that the Declaration discusses the
advantages of appellant’s polymeric roller. However, a polymeric
roller is not claimed. What is recited in claims 7, 10 and 13 is
an aircraft roller fabricated from a polymeric material. The
Declaration states that although the Declarants have been in the
field of aircraft roller system repair and maintenance for about
25 years, that they have never seen an aircraft roller formed
from plastic, and that the FAA was surprised that the inventors
have created a polymeric roller that would work on aircraft.
As we found, supra, from our claim construction, the claims
are not limited to a roller fabricated solely from polymeric
material, or from a single piece of polymeric material. We are
cognizant of the differences between the rollers of Thompson and
the rollers disclosed by the appellant. However, these
differences have not been specified in appellant’s claims.
We agree with the Declaration that the requirements for
airplane rollers are different from the requirements of regular
rollers, such as the rollers for a boat trailer. However,
Thompson is directed to a roller for an airplane that is
fabricated, inter alia, from polymeric material, and is used for
the same purpose and in the same environment as appellant’s
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007