Appeal 2007-2888
Application 11/017,602
ANTICIPATION BY SLOAN
Claims 1, 2, 17, 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sloan.
Issue on Appeal
The Examiner contends that Sloan describes an airframe section that
comprises a foam portion which is inserted between frame members by an
“interference fit” as recited in claim 1 and that the foam portion is also
“sized to be force fit” between the frame members as recited in claim 17.
Appellant contends that Sloan does not use these terms to describe
how the foam portion is fit between the frame members and that such fit
would defeat the Sloan’s purpose.
The issue in this rejection is whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that Sloan describes foam portions which provide an interference fit
and which are sized to be force fit between the airframe frame members.
Claim interpretation
We begin with claim interpretation because only when a claim is
properly understood can a determination be made whether the prior art
anticipates it.
Claim 1 is directed to an airframe section that comprises a “foam
portion” which is inserted between airframe frame members in an
“interference fit.” As explained in the Specification, the airframe is the
outer structure of an aircraft. The airframe is comprised of a multitude of
frame members which are typically arranged in a rectilinear pattern
(Specification ¶ 19). The frame members support the aircraft’s outer skin
(id.).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013