Appeal 2007-1831
Application 10/313,052
Therefore, we are in agreement with Appellants that Burnelli’s teaching only
relates to wing tip rudders. Tailless airplanes that do not have tail units do
not provide an express teaching of winglets with aerodynamic control
elements in an aircraft with a conventional tail.
Similarly, Burhans discloses a gull wing aircraft lacking an
empennage or conventional tail. The ailerons and flaps 41-44 or 45-48
along the trailing edges of the wing inherently influence lift and they also
substitute for the control that a tail would give a normal aircraft. The
examiner has not articulated a rational underpinning for any rejection based
on these combined teachings of Burnelli and Burhans with Arnold, and we
certainly do not recognize one.
Likewise with respect to claims 22 and 25 wherein Sigalla is used as a
primary reference instead of Arnold, we do not find that a rational basis
exists for a finding of obviousness based on these combined teachings.
We have carefully considered the other cited references but nothing
therein can ameliorate the problems we have already discussed with respect
to Arnold or Sigalla in view of Burhans and Burnelli. Accordingly, all of
the rejections on appeal based on the grounds of obviousness are reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013