Appeal No. 1997-2075 Page 13
Application No. 08/362,362
laser shock peening method of Vaccari on the edges of
turbine blades to improve their fatigue life since it was
known in the art that the edges of such blades were
subject to high fatigue.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 17-18) that the above-
noted obviousness determination made by the examiner is in
error since there is nothing in Vaccari, Duley and Fishter
which teaches or suggests laser shock peening of edges of
turbine blades.
The appellant's argument is unpersuasive since the
examiner is not relying solely on Vaccari, Duley and Fishter
in rejecting claim 10. As set forth by the examiner on page
11 of the answer, in addition to the applied prior art the
examiner is relying on the knowledge that it was well-known
that engine blade edges were subject to high fatigue. In 5
view of this well-known knowledge, we agree with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to an artisan to laser shock
peen those engine blade edges for the self evident advantage
of reducing fatigue.
5The appellant has not contested the examiner's
application of this well-known knowledge.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007