Appeal No. 1996-1897
Application 08/064,145
appellants use the terms “webs” and “ribs,” respectively. Indeed, with reference to Mushardt FIG. 1,
we observe that an “integral” structure is formed from the sections of the “walls” and the associated
“connector . . . ribs or webs,” which structure is a “rib” as specified in appealed claims 12 and 26
through 29, as indeed, the two such areas in FIG. 6 constitute “parallel chucking surfaces” as specified
in appealed claims 12 and 26 through 29. We further observe that the “walls” run “along a surface” of
a blade of the workpiece as specified for the “webs” in appealed claims 12 and 26 through 29 and we
note that the area of the “walls” between the “integral” structures forming “ribs” is indeed a “web”
between two “ribs” as this term is used in appellants’ specification and appealed claims.
We find that Mushardt teaches that the enclosures taught therein can have a “plurality of
spaced-apart compartments in the form of walls” (page 2, lines 23-24; emphasis supplied) from which
one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably inferred that an enclosure can have more than
two “walls.” Mushardt also teaches that the “walls” can be connected by “two or more spaced-apart
ribs or webs” (page 2, lines 27-29; emphasis added) from which one of ordinary skill in this art would
have reasonably inferred that the “walls” can be connected by two or more “integral” structures. Thus,
Mushardt would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art to provide the enclosure
with “several spaced apart ribs connected along a surface of . . . [the] workpiece through webs” as
specified in appealed claims 12 and 26 through 29.
We fail to find in Mushardt any express teaching that the portion of the “walls” and the
“integral” structures which correspond to the “webs” and “ribs” specified in the appealed claims have
“cross-sectional surfaces of approximately the same size” as specified in appealed claims 12 and 29;
that the leading and trailing edges of the power unit blade workpiece is at least partially enclosed by
webs of the enclosure, as in appealed claim 20, wherein the distance between the ribs can be smaller at
the blade base and/or tip than in the center, as in claim 23, and the distance between the center ribs can
be larger than twice the rib thickness, as in claim 25; and that the workpiece located between the ribs
can be completely enclosed as in claims 18 and 19.
However, as we set forth above, it was known in the prior art as evinced by the combined teachings
of Mushardt and Wendt that the formation of the enclosure around the workpiece was for the purpose
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007