Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
conceded by the examiner (see page 4 in the answer), however,
Uehling does not specify the nature of the interface between the
compressor 14 and the pipe 24, and thus does meet the limitations
in independent claims 1, 14 and 21 relating to the groove(s) in
the engine case or shroud. The examiner nonetheless concludes
that
[i]t . . . would have been obvious to use either an
annular groove, plural annular groove segments or
plural holes as the openings in the Uehling reference.
While the Uehling reference does not teach a specific
shape for the opening one of ordinary skill would
realize that the opening is either a single opening (an
annular groove) or plural openings (interrupted grooves
or plural opening[s]). Therefore, it would have been
obvious to use an opening shape which would be easy to
manufacture. It also would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use plural grooves, either
around a single rotor blade set or around plural blade
sets in order to provide an increased protection
against compressor surge and stall [answer, pages 4 and
5].
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must rest on a
factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
177-78 (CCPA 1967). In making such a rejection, the examiner has
the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may
not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. Id. The foregoing
rationalization advanced by the examiner to justify the rejection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007