Appeal No. 2006-2036 Page 6
Application No. 10/382,753
rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Telder.
The rejection of all of the remaining dependent claims is also not sustained because
these rejections rely on the underlying rejection of their respective independent
claims.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner also rejected claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Romer in view of Telder. The
examiner has determined that Van Romer shows a fluid capture system including
fluid retaining means (10) having fluid damming means (14) and contour means
for permitting placement of the fluid retaining means in position below the aircraft
adjacent the landing wheel. The examiner has also determined that the fluid
retaining means of Van Romer is substantially one integral piece structured and
arranged to be placed substantially flat on the ground in position below the aircraft.
The examiner admits that Van Romer fails to disclose contour means that partially
surrounds the landing wheel and permits the landing wheel to remain outside the
damming means. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4).
The examiner relies on Telder to teach a fluid capture system with contour
means that permits the wheel to remain outside the fluid damming means while in
position below the aircraft and that surrounds at least three sides of the landing
wheel. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4). The examiner has determined,
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
the contour means of Van Romer et al. with the cutout
contour means as taught by Telder in order to provide a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007