Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,259
To begin with, Rimkunas does not expressly describe any of
the blades disclosed therein as having a platform. The
examiner’s assertion that a particular line of demarcation shown
in Figure 1 of the reference is the side view of a platform (see
page 5 in the answer) lacks factual support and is unduly
speculative. The related contention that “[i]t is generally
understood and universally accepted that all turbine engine
blades have a platform at the base ends of the blades” (answer,
page 5) also lacks factual support and indeed is refuted by
Rimkunas (see Figure 4) and by various other prior art references
of record in the application.
Moreover, even if Rimkunas did disclose a blade having a
platform extending laterally outward therefrom between its root
and airfoil, this reference lacks any teaching of an aperture
extending between the root side of such platform and a cavity
within the airfoil as recited in claims 1 and 12. The examiner’s
reliance on the aperture or hole 60 shown in Rimkunas’ Figure 4
to meet this limitation (see page 5 in the answer) is unsound
because hole 60 extends between the base or root side of the
airfoil and the cavity within the airfoil rather than between the
root side of any platform extending laterally outward from the
blade between its root and airfoil and the cavity.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007