Appeal No. 2003-0470
Application 09/671,870
flow in-between the blades produced the jets and the wakes
of the blades were low pressure voids resulting from the
blade’s vortex dynamics.”
Our problem with the examiner’s position as set
forth in the final rejection is that we find no identity
between the turbofan wheel (34) of Paulson and the rotor
(30) as seen, for example, in Figure 2A of appellant’s
drawings, and can conceive of no reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to conclude that the
turbofan wheel (34) of Paulson would perform the same method
steps as those claimed by appellant, or produce the same
flow as the rotor (30) disclosed by appellant.
In the examiner’s answer (page 3), the examiner
merely makes note that claims 5, 6 and 9 through 13 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and indicates that such
rejection is set forth in prior Office Action, Paper No. 9.
In the remainder of the answer (pages 3-5), the examiner,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007