Appeal No. 2000-0178
Application 08/686,630
support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 8,
filed March 1, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 10, filed July
12, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first at the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and
11 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nazmy in view of the American Machinist article, we note that on
page 3 of the answer the examiner has urged that Nazmy discloses
a turbine blade made of gamma titanium aluminide (an
intermetallic material), which material has properties that make
it suitable and beneficial for use in the manufacture of turbine
blades that may be subjected to high operating temperatures. We,
however, observe that Nazmy does not mention laser shock peening
of the blades therein as required in each of the claims on appeal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007