Appeal No. 1997-2075 Page 15
Application No. 08/362,362
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 18-19) 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 to extend the beam spots beyond the
edge of the turbine blade.
The appellant's argument is unpersuasive since the
examiner is not relying solely on Vaccari, Duley and Fishter
in rejecting claim 16. As set forth by the examiner on page
12 of the answer, in addition to the applied prior art the
examiner is relying on simple geometry to establish how one
skilled in the art would have applied overlapping laser spots
as taught by Vaccari along an edge of a turbine blade. In
view of this simple geometry, we agree with the examiner that
it would have been obvious to an artisan to extend the beam
spots beyond the edge of the turbine blade to obtain full
coverage on the blade.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the examiner
to reject claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. In
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 17 to 19 fall with
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007