Appeal No. 2002-0538
Application 09/220,468
air from the tip clearance area of the appellant’s compressor
section does (see pages 5 and 6 in the appellant’s
specification).
Hence, notwithstanding the appellant’s arguments to the
contrary, Uehling would have suggested a gas turbine engine
responsive to the “opening” limitations in claim 10. Since
Uehling meets all of the other limitations therein, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 as
being unpatentable over Uehling in view of Cureton, with the
application of Cureton being, at worst, superfluous.
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 11 through 13 and 20 as being
unpatentable over Uehling in view of Cureton since the appellant
has not challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby
allowing these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 10 (see
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 21
is affirmed with respect to claims 10 through 13 and 20 and
reversed with respect to claims 1 through 9, 14 through 19 and
21.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007