Appeal No. 2004-0616
Application 09/692,982
consequence of our review, we have determined, for the reasons
which follow, that the examiner's respective rejections of the
appealed claims are not well founded, and that the evidence
relied upon by the examiner does not support a conclusion of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to the subject
matter of claims 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 14 through 16 and
18 through 20 on appeal.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4
through 6, 8 through 11, 14 through 16 and 18 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ripka, we make note
of the examiner’s position as set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the
answer, but find nothing therein that identifies where
specifically in Ripka there is to be found “in at least one flow
passage” the cross-sectional shape thereof transitioning from “an
unenhanced form to an enhanced form in a gradual manner so as to
reduce the occurrence of stress therein, the length of said
transition being defined by the following relationship:
1.7ŠL/DhaŠ7.0 ...,” as set forth in similar language in both
independent claims 1 and 11 on appeal. The examiner’s reliance
on “(col. 5, lines 52-68, col. 6, lines 1-2, fig. 2, fig. 9, fig.
3)” of Ripka for this aspect of appellants’ claimed subject
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007