Appeal No. 1999-1084
Application No. 08/818,051
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 to
3, 6 to 8, 10 to 12 and 15 to 18. The other claims in the
application, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 19 and 20, have been cancelled.2
The claims on appeal are drawn to a failsafe nozzle
actuating system for an aircraft gas turbine engine and a
method for operating such a system. They are reproduced in
Appendix A of appellants’ brief.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Thompson et al. (Thompson) 2,395,435 Feb. 26,
1946
Curties et al. (Curties) 3,322,939 May
30, 1967
Lippmeier et al. (Lippmeier) 5,174,502 Dec.
29, 1992
2In an amendment filed on January 26, 1996 (Paper No. 8),
appellants requested that claims 19 and 20 "be dismissed
without prejudice," but the examiner included them in the
final rejection (Paper No. 23). Appellants state on page 2 of
their brief (third paragraph) that claims 19 and 20 were
cancelled, and the examiner evidently agrees, since claims 19
and 20 are not included in the statement of the grounds of
rejection on page 3 of the examiner’s answer. We note,
however, that the amendment cancelling claims 19 and 20 has
not been entered. We also note in reviewing the application
that piston 300 in Fig. 6 is not crosshatched.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007