Appeal 2007-0118
Application 10/175,612
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Henne US 4,858,852 Aug. 22, 1989
Vijgen US 5,088,665 Feb. 18, 1992
Allen US 5,265,830 Nov. 30, 1993
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Henne in view of Allen or Vijgen.
ISSUE
Appellants contend Henne teaches away from combining its teachings with
Allen or Vijgen (Br. 8-9), there is no motivation to combine Henne with Allen or
Vijgen (Br. 9-11), one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable
expectation of success when combining Henne with Allen or Vijgen (Br. 11-12),
and even when combined, the combination fails to teach or suggest all of the claim
limitations (Br. 12-16). The Examiner contends Henne does not teach away from
the combination because Henne is relied upon to show the trailing edge wedge of
the claims, and Allen and Vijgen are relied upon merely to teach that it is known to
provide spanwise modifications to trailing edge wedges on a wing (Answer 3-4).
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
holding claims 1-20 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Henne in view of
Allen or Vijgen.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013