Appeal No. 2002-2110 Page 8
Application No. 09/224,748
Here, we are unpersuaded of the desirability of programming Stewart's "imaging
computer 42," col. 4, l. 54, to calculate the width, depth, and length of "residual core
material left behind by a preceding core removal step." Col. 1, ll. 6-7. The examiner's
conclusion that such a modification would "better implement the manufacturing
process," (Examiner's Answer at 6), is not objective evidence of record. More
specifically, he proffers no evidence that a "manufacture[r] of air cooled turbine blades
for aero engines," col. 1, ll. 9-10, would have benefitted from calculating the dimensions
of any residual core material. To the contrary, it appears that Stewart's "visual
inspection of the blade[s]," col. 4, l. 55, is sufficient to determine which blades need to
"be returned for further leaching. . . ." Id. at ll. 58-59. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-8.
Furthermore, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Mis
cures the aforementioned deficiency. Therefore, we also reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 9-13.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is
affirmed. The rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-13 under § 103(a), however, are
reversed. "Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007