Appeal 2007-1831
Application 10/313,052
means if they become inoperative in flight. The auxiliary control
surfaces are cut away to allow a blast of air to reach the conventional
control surfaces so that both controls surfaces can be used at the
same time.
6. Boyle discloses automatic control of conventional aircraft control
surfaces so that landing and takeoff can be automated.
7. Daude discloses a winglet which is rotatable about a substantial
vertical axis with respect to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft so
that the lift drag ratio of the aircraft may be improved. We note that
Appellants’ claims specify no increase in lift but an increase in drag.
8. Jupp discloses a shape of a winglet that minimizes flow breakaway
and stalling of the winglet.
PRINCIPAL OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See
also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984). It is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See id. at 1073, 5 USPQ2d at
1598. In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966), viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the art. In addition to these factual determinations, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013