Appeal No. 2000-0178
Application 08/686,630
laser shock peen the entire blade surface of the blade in Nazmy
following the teachings of the American Machinist article, by
urging that the teachings at page 64 of the American Machinist
article make it clear that the process disclosed in that
reference is limited and “not yet practical for treating large
surface areas.” Therefore, appellants assert (brief, page 15)
that the examiner has utilized appellants’ own disclosure in the
present application as a blueprint for piecing together unrelated
references without citing any legitimate suggestion or motivation
for their combination and thereby engaged in an improper
hindsight reconstruction to obtain the result claimed by
appellants.
Having carefully reviewed the collective teachings of Nazmy
and the American Machinist article, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellants’ view that there is no motivation,
teaching or suggestion in the applied references for the
examiner’s proposed combination thereof in such a manner as to
result in appellants’ claimed subject matter. Without any
teaching or suggestion in the applied references at all relating
to laser shock peening, or even shot peening, of intermetallic
materials, it is our opinion that the examiner has used
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007