Appeal No. 2004-1622
Application No. 09/431,178
As framed and argued by the appellants, the dispositive
issue in the appeal is whether Howald would have rendered obvious
within the meaning of ' 103(a) a component meeting the limitation
in claim 1 requiring that Aa ratio of the cross-sectional area of
the hot-side orifice of the at least one component cooling
passage to the cross-sectional area of the cold-side orifice of
the at least one component cooling passage is less than 1.2.@
The appellants do not dispute the examiner=s assessment that
Howald teaches, or would have suggested, a component meeting the
remaining limitations in the claim. Of the ratio in question,
the appellants= specification states that
[i]t proves to be favorable if the discharge cross
section of the cooling passage is less than 120% of the
inlet cross section, this on the one hand for
production reasons, so that the variation in the power
density of the cutting beam over the material thickness
to be penetrated is kept within practible limits, and
in order not require too short a focal width of the
collimating optics used [page 8].
The following passage from the Howald reference fairly
summarizes the component disclosed therein:
[b]riefly and in its broader aspects the invention
is characterized by a structural member, the Aouter@
surface of which defines a flow path for a hot gas
stream moving therepast at a relatively high velocity.
The opposite surface of this member defines, at least
in part, a chamber. Means are provided for
pressurizing a coolant, preferably air, within this
chamber to a pressure somewhat greater than the static
pressure of the gas stream flowing therepast. Discrete
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007