Appeal No. 95-1724
Application No. 08/011,604
examiner’s position that Bruno’s chamber contains “a turbine
blade which is located above at least a position [sic,
portion?] of baffle 32” (Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, page
3). As correctly indicated by the appellant, however, Figure
1 of Bruno clearly shows patentee’s turbine blade to be
located substantially to the left of, rather than above as
urged by the examiner, baffle 32.
It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 13, 15 and 16 as
being unpatentable over Szekely or his § 103 rejection of
claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 15 as being unpatentable over
Bruno. Furthermore, since the above discussed deficiencies of
these references are not supplied by Ivanov, we also cannot
sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 16 as being
unpatentable over Szekely and Bruno in view of Ivanov.
In summary, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1,
2, 4 through 8 and 15 as being unpatentable over Heuer but
have not sustained any of the other rejections advanced by the
examiner on this appeal.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007