Appeal No. 2004-1622
Application No. 09/431,178
range of values, even to the range of between 1 and 1.2
as claimed by appellants in the instant application, in
order to optimize the performance of the structural
members or buckets being cooled while achieving
particular desired levels of entrainment of cooling
within the hot gas boundary layer, for example [answer,
page 5].
The examiner=s conclusion of obviousness ostensibly rests on
the well established principle that the discovery of an optimum
value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious, with
exceptions occurring where the parameter optimized was not
recognized to be a result effective variable or where the results
of optimizing a known result effective variable were unexpectedly
good. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8-9 (CCPA
1977).
In the present case, it is true that the ratio of the cross-
sectional areas of the hot-side and cold-side orifices depends on
some of the cooling effectiveness factors, e.g., length and
included angle of the hole, mentioned by Howald. Moreover, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that changes in
these factors made to achieve a desired level of cooling
effectiveness would produce corresponding changes in the ratio of
the cross-sectional areas of the hot-side and cold-side orifices.
Howald, however, does not even mention this ratio, let alone
attach any importance thereto, in connection with the design of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007