Appeal No. 2003-1557 Page 3
Application No. 09/817,884
support of the rejections and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 14 and 16) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by
the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
We perceive the basis of the examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being inoperative and thus lacking utility to be the fact that, given the
mathematical model discussed on pages 7 and 8 of appellants’ specification, the
adjusted core exhaust nozzle area of 476.8 square inches produces substantially the
same thrust for a fully deteriorated engine as a core exhaust nozzle area of 442.4
square inches. Thus, according to the examiner, appellants’ method of adjusting the
nozzle area has no utility. The examiner also comments that the use of different units
(scales) for different temperatures3 on pages 7 and 8 of appellants’ specification and
the fact that appellants have not specified the detailed “algorithm” or mathematical
model discussed on pages 7 and 8 of their specification has led the examiner to the
3 The use of different units (Rankine, Fahrenheit or Centigrade) is inconsequential, as the
conversion from one scale to another for compatibility is simple and well known.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007