Appeal No. 2000-0184
Application No. 08/955,226
appellant and do not have a fan configuration like that set forth in appellant’s claims on appeal. To
account for these differences, the examiner points to Figures 6 and 7 of Auxier ‘158 and particularly to
the film holes (64) seen therein which appear to show a film hole that increases in flow area between an
inlet at coolant passage (62) and an outlet (adjacent 70) and which show that the outlet of the hole is of
a greater span height than the inlet. Armed with these showings in Auxier ‘158, the examiner has
concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention to form the film holes (58) of Auxier ‘268 such that the holes increase in flow area between an
inlet and an outlet thereof with the outlet greater in span height than the inlet, with the outlet and inlet
being substantially equal in width, as taught in Auxier ‘158 for the purpose of providing enhanced film
cooling.
In the answer (page 8), the examiner has expressed the view that since both of the applied patents
mention film cooling that one of ordinary skill in the art, given these two patents, “would have readily
recognized the applicability of the outlet near 70 of Auxier ‘158 to an airfoil with plural fan holes spaced
along the span axis such as the fan holes 58 in Auxier ‘268.” Having modified the film holes (58) of
Auxier ‘268 in the manner noted above, the examiner then concludes (answer, page 15) that such
modified holes “would inherently produce increased coverage by virtue of the increased film cooling
coverage area at the outlet.”
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007