Appeal No. 2003-0470
Application 09/671,870
6 and 9 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be
sustained. Our reasons follow.
The examiner’s position in the final rejection
(Paper No. 9, page 2) appears to hinge on the deter-
mination that Paulson discloses a noise suppressor (10)
attached to the aft end of a turbojet engine (11), wherein
the noise suppressor includes a free-running turbofan wheel
(34), at least a portion (41) of which is located in the
exhaust flow from the jet engine, and the examiner’s stated
conclusion that Paulson discloses “an apparatus identical to
the one disclosed [by appellant], performing the same method
steps as those claimed, and therefore producing the same
flow as the one disclosed [by appellant].” In that regard,
the examiner is apparently of the view that segregation into
a plurality of rotating high velocity, low density jets and
a plurality of rotating low pressure voids in the system of
Paulson “is a result of the rotor rotation, as the axial
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007