Appeal No. 2000-0184
Application No. 08/955,226
we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 5, mailed April 9, 1999) and the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 8, mailed August 2, 1999) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 7, filed July 12, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 is not sustainable. Our reasoning in support of that
determination follows.
In considering the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
collective teachings of Auxier ‘268 and Auxier ‘158, we note that Auxier ‘268 essentially represents
the prior art as described by appellant on page 2 of the specification, i.e., wherein a plurality of
cylindrical film cooling holes (58) are arranged spanwise of the turbine blade (10), as seen in Figure 1
of the patent, and are inclined at an acute span angle relative to the span axis of the blade. The
examiner recognizes that the film cooling holes (58) of Auxier ‘268 are not diffusion holes as claimed by
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007