Appeal No. 2004-0529
Application No. 09/328,931
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Under the authority of 37 CFR § 41.50(b), this panel of the
Board introduces the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1 through 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Independent claim 1 is indefinite in that it
is ambiguous as to the configuration of the set of rotatable
blades that is covered by the claimed subject matter.2 In other
words, the language, when read in light of the underlying
disclosure, leaves it uncertain as to what configuration for the
2 It is not clear whether any set of rotatable blades that
has a degree of camber (downward turn) over any extent thereof
would effect a virtual disk shape having the properties of a
lifting body, as now claimed. Appellant indicates that the
present invention in Fig. 1b is in a flat configuration similar
to the shape of standard helicopter blades (shown in the figure
with slightly downwardly cambered ends). Are the downwardly
cambered ends in Fig. 1b the shape of the ends of the referenced
standard (prior art) helicopter blades? We note that in Fig.
13a, the blades turn down "slightly" near distal ends 116. If it
is clarified that rotatable blades that have any degree of camber
(downward turn) over any extent thereof would effect a virtual
disk shape having the properties of a lifting body, as now
claimed, the examiner should take this into account when
considering prior art applicable to appellant's claims during any
further prosecution. The examiner's attention is particularly
drawn to the following patents that disclose helicopter blades
having tip portions that droop downwardly, i.e., U.S. Patent No.
4,108,403, U.S. Patent No. 4,324,530, U.S. Patent No. 4,334,828,
U.S. Patent No.4,975,022, and U.S. Patent No. 5,320,494.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007