Appeal No. 2006-2036 Page 3
Application No. 10/382,753
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after
consideration of the record before us, Telder does not anticipate the invention as
claimed, and the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
In the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 the examiner has
determined that Telder shows a fluid capture system having a fluid retaining means
(oil changer 10) comprising a fluid damming means (side walls 27) and contour
means (cutout 38) for permitting placement of the fluid retaining means in position
below the aircraft adjacent the landing wheel of the aircraft. The examiner further
found that the contour means of Telder is adapted to permit at least three sides of
the landing wheel to be partially surrounded by the fluid damming means, and the
fluid retaining means of Telder comprises substantially one integral piece
structured and arranged to be placed substantially flat on the ground in position
below the aircraft. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 3).
The appellant contends, inter alia, that the Telder device does not disclose a
fluid retaining means (claim 1) or fluid retainer (claim 8) or drip pan (claim 15)
that is “structured and arranged to be placed substantially flat on the ground in
position below the aircraft.” (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 13-14, 16, 17). Specifically,
the appellant argues that: (1) the adjusting arrangement of the locking pin 35 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007