Appeal No. 2003-0653 Page 6
Application No. 09/861,268
The appellant teaches (specification, p. 10) that in each case, the second blunt is
significantly exposed and will not be maintained on the tip end of the blade after an air
jet is pulsed to remove the second blunt. In our view, Figure 2B of the Admitted Prior
Art clearly shows that tip end 105A securely captures only D-shaped blunt 209 since
the other D-shaped blunt 207 on top of blunt 209 is not secured in the tip end 105A and
would not be maintained on the tip end of the blade after an air jet is pulsed to remove
the upper blunt 207. In addition, it is our opinion that Figure 2A of the Admitted Prior
Art shows that neither D-shaped blunt is securely captured by the tip end 105A since
both blunts would not be maintained on the tip end of the blade after an air jet is pulsed
to remove both blunts.
With respect to claim 12, the appellant asserts that the Admitted Prior Art does
not have a tip end having a cutout which is designed to capture securely only one
blunt. We do not agree for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 11.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007