For those w/o time to look at this case, it had to do with something added to the wing to reduce drag on take off. PTO argued that the prior art was quite similar. Sufficiently so that it made the current invention obvious. But the patent owner agrued that prior art focus was on creating more lift. PTO argued that creating more lift was same as reducing drag and kept rejecting patent owner's argument. But in the end, patent owner prevailed.

I see the above argument as similar to the one being used against us in the 148. Yes the individual pieces and even configuration look similar in some prior art, but its apples and oranges. - lift vs drag. Opty