Appeal No. 1996-1897
Application 08/064,145
of manipulating the workpiece as required in order to hold the same to one or more machine tools for
processing. Indeed, Wendt discloses, with respect to the drawing thereof, that the
block or capsule 3 . . . confines selected portions of the workpiece 2 which is a blank of the
type intended to be converted into a turbine blade as a result of removal of material from
certain exposed portions of the blank in a grinding machine . . . [wherein] the block 3 is a
solid body. . . .
The block 3 is produced in a manner . . . that the configuration of the block 3 contributes
significantly to convenience of manipulation in a machine tool. . . . Moreover, the external
surfaces and/or other external features of the block 3 are selected with a view to ensure that
the block can be readily mounted in the machine tool so as to allow for convenient orientation
of the workpiece in one or more optimum positions relative to the material removing tool or
tools as well as for reliable retention of the block in the selected position or positions. Thus,
the block can be provided with one or more specifically shaped and accurately positioned
protuberances or other features which facilitate accurate positioning of the workpiece
in the selected machine tool, such as a grinding machine. [Page 2, line 84, to page 3, line 8;
emphasis supplied.]
We find from an inspection of the Wendt drawing that block 3 that surrounds the irregularly contoured
solid metal workpiece 2 as a solid piece has two sides which have a “bottom part 4,” with “legs” having
“suitably configured grooves or notches” at “6 and 6'” which “cooperate with the respective ribs to
locate the workpiece 2 in an optimum position with reference to the work holder,” and an “upper side
7” which can be “provided with means for facilitating accurate and predictable centering and/or other
types of mounting of the unit 1 on a machine tool” (page 3, lines 61-110). The two sides of block 3 are
attached by a connector located above and below the solid workpiece 2. We are of the opinion that
one of ordinary skill in this art would have interpreted the sides and connector of the enclosure of
Wendt to be the same as the “walls” and the connecting “ribs or webs” of the enclosure of Mushardt,
wherein the difference between the drawings of these two references resides in that there is an
irregularly contoured solid metal blank workpiece in the Wendt drawing and an irregularly contoured
turbine twin blade workpiece in Mushardt FIGS. 1-6. Thus, as was the case with the structure shown
in Mushardt, the “walls” and connecting “ribs or webs” of Wendt would fall within the meaning of “ribs”
and “webs” as these terms are employed in appellants’ appealed claims.
Thus, we are of the view that one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably used the
knowledge in the art as evinced by Mushardt and Wendt that any number of “walls” and connector
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007