Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
would be equally obvious. No unexpected results are asserted for
the hyperbolic shape as opposed to the V-shape, U-shape, and
parabolic shape in other claims. In fact, the specification
states that "it makes little difference whether the curved
leading edge is actually 'U'-shaped, parabolic, hyperbolic, or
described by some other mathematical function" (spec. at 10).
Therefore, we conclude that the choice of a hyperbolic shape
would have been obvious over the various shapes taught by
Fukuoka. The rejection of claims 23 and 24 is sustained.
Claim 25
Appellants argue that claim 25 recites "the wide part of the
hyperbolic-shaped portion is spaced from the trailing edge,"
which distinguishes over Brezoczky for this reason as well as the
reasons mentioned for claims 23 and 24 (Br13).
Appellants do not argue why the examiner erred in the
rejection which includes Fukuoka and, in fact, appellants do not
mention Fukuoka at all. The rejection must be sustained for this
reason. In addition, since Fukuoka shows the wide part of the
curved portion in Fig. 7 spaced from the trailing edge, i.e.,
only the front part of the surface is curved and the sides have a
straight portion, it would have been obvious to make the wide
part of a hyperbolic-shaped portion suggested by Fukuoka spaced
from the trailing edge. The rejection of claim 25 is sustained.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007