Appeal No. 2000-0581
Application No. 08/429,155
appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of this
rejection.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
In rejecting all of the claims on appeal, the examiner
relies on the combined teachings of Breton, Poland and Marti.
The examiner's explanation of the rejection, as set forth on
page 3 of the answer, is as follows:
Breton discloses a device for receiving
signatures 14 from a web and rotatable mounts 15 and
16 with blades and pockets. It would have been
obvious to have included replaceable fan blade tips
in order to ease the maintenance requirements
thereof as taught by Poland et al (71-73).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to have
included aligning means in order to facilitate
assembly as taught by Marti (note the unnumbered
aligning pin means to the left and right of element
18 in Figure 5). Re claims 8, 10, 14-21, 24, 25 and
27, the use of the claimed conventional reinforcing
or other plated material would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007