Appeal No. 2006-2036 Page 7
Application No. 10/382,753
cleaner environment by placing the drip pan under the
engine in a manner that provides “a greater likelihood
that all of the drained liquids will be captured” as
described by Telder in column 3, lines 55-64.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 4).
The appellant argues, inter alia, that it is improper to combine the teachings
of Van Romer and Telder because the devices are designed to perform
different/incompatible functions in different/incompatible environments and
operate in different/incompatible ways with different/incompatible types of
airplanes. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 20). Specifically, the appellant argues that the
Telder device is designed for changing oil and as such the casters (24) and narrow
cutout (38) of the Telder device are designed so that the device can be carefully
wheeled into position beneath a stationary plane. The Van Romer device, on the
other hand, is designed to be used on crop spraying aircraft that are refueled or
reloaded with chemicals at the field site. As such, the Van Romer device is
designed so that a plane can be driven and positioned over a stationary containment
device. The appellant argues that it would not work to use the cutout of Telder on
the Van Romer device, because it would require the pilot to maneuver the plane
into proper position to place the landing gear within the cutout, and the pilot would
not be able to see the cutout or the landing gear from the cockpit. (Appellant’s
Brief, pp. 20-21, Appellant’s Reply Brief, pp. 5-7). Also, Van Romer teaches that
essentially the entire aircraft is to be parked over the portable containment (10),
such that the landing wheels of the aircraft rest on the floor (12). (Appellant’s
Brief, p. 22).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007