Appeal No. 97-2228
Application 08/509,259
Thus, Rimkunas does not disclose, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of the rotor
blade recited in independent claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
these claims or of claims 2 through 4, 10 and 11 which depend
from claim 1.
The combined disclosures of Rimkunas and Parkes also fail to
teach, and would not have suggested, a rotor blade having the
foregoing features recited in claim 1. Therefore, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5
through 9, which depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable over
Rimkunas in view of Parkes.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007