Appeal No. 98-2118
Application No. 08/459,986
second value does not patentably distinguish these claims over
the arrangement of Elvekjaer.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Korta in view of Elvekjaer. The examiner is
of the opinion that it would have been obvious to substitute
the vane of Elvekjaer for the vane of Korta "in order to have
a more efficient vane which would avoid secondary losses which
occur due to the deflection of the boundary layers" (final
rejection, page 6).
A full explanation of the rejections may be found on
pages 5 and 6 of the final rejection. The arguments of the
appellants and examiner in support of their respective
positions may be found on pages 5-9 of the brief and pages 6-
10 of the answer.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that on page 4 of the
brief, the appellants have grouped (1) claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9
as a first group, (2) claims 4 and 5 as a second group, and
(3) claim 7 by itself as a third group. Accordingly, (1)
claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 stand or fall together with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007