Appeal No. 95-4515
Application No. 08/243,000
material or vane using a jet of air 79. In contrast, the
record before us is devoid of any argument by the examiner
addressing this limitation. The examiner's answer does not
address this limitation. Furthermore, we find no teaching in
either Hopper or Hansen for the claimed process step, or a
mechanism or rationale for providing said procedural step. In
the absence of a teaching thereof, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 122, 124, 129, 130, 133 - 143,
145, and 146 is reversed.
REVERSED
John D. Smith )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007