Ex Parte Caddell et al - Page 2




                    Appeal No. 2004-0453                                                                                                  
                    Application No. 09/828,019                                                                                            


                    newly manufactured. This appealed subject matter is adequately illustrated by                                         
                    independent claim 19, which reads as follows:                                                                         
                                    19.  A turbine nozzle segment comprising:                                                             
                                    an outer band;                                                                                        
                                    an inner band; and                                                                                    
                                    first and second vanes disposed between said outer and inner bands,                                   
                                    wherein said first vane and contiguous portions of said outer and                                     
                                    inner bands define a first section of said nozzle segment and said                                    
                                    second vane and respectively contiguous portions of said outer                                        
                                    and inner bands define a second section of said nozzle segment,                                       
                                    said first section being previously used and said second section                                      
                                    being newly manufactured.                                                                             

                            Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                                
                    of Lee in view of Mendham, and claim 21 stands correspondingly rejected as being                                      
                    unpatentable over these references and further in view of Rasch.1                                                     
                            Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the appellants and by                             
                    the examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief and to the Answer (as well                            
                    as to the Final Office Action) for a complete exposition thereof.                                                     
                                                               OPINION                                                                    
                            For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the rejections before us.                               





                     2                                                                                                                    
                     2On Page 3 of the Brief, the appellants indicate that the appealed claims are grouped                                
                     pursuant to the manner in which they have been rejected. Accordingly, in our dis-                                    
                     position of this appeal, we will consider each of the arguments advanced against the                                 
                     examiner’s rejections.                                                                                               

                                                                    2                                                                     



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007