Appeal No. 2002-2148 Page 10
Application No. 09/627,143
(1) Mannava disclosed all the claimed subject matter except for the alloy composition of
the metallic material; and (2) it would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of Mannava based on
the teachings of Sue to be an alloy based on at least one element selected from the
group consisting of Ti, Fe, Ni, and Co.
In the brief (pp. 7-8), the appellants do not contest the examiner's combination of
Mannava and Sue. The appellants do argue that certain limitations are not taught by
Mannava (i.e., the band extends radially into the airfoil to a depth selected from
operational experience to resist operational damage as recited in claims 3 and 9; the band
extends radially into the airfoil to a depth less than a location at which an excessive,
detrimental amount of residual tensile stress in the airfoil is required to balance the
compressive stress in the band, as measured by at least one tested vibratory response
mode unique to the airfoil as recited in claims 4 and 10; and the location is greater than
about 10% of a span length of the airfoil as recited in claims 5 and 11).
In the answer (pp. 5-6), the examiner explained how the above-identified
limitations of claims 3 to 5 and 9 to 11 are found and disclosed in Mannava. The
appellants did not challenge the examiner's explanation of how the above-identified
limitations of claims 3 to 5 and 9 to 11 are readable on Mannava in the reply brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007