Appeal No. 2005-0567
Application 10/280,391
one of ordinary skill in this art because appellants’ unsupported allegations do not address the
clear teachings in Fried of the weldable alloys used only for shroud plate 5, not the whole of the
gas turbine blade, which alloys would encompass the heat resistant alloys of Sekino Col. 2, ll. 1-
11. Appellants’ arguments also do not establish that such heat resistant alloys are taught in
Sekino to be of limited “end use.”
We now turn to appellants’ arguments with respect to appealed claims 12 and 15 (brief,
pages 16-18). Considering first claim 15, appellants contend that the rejection did not
“recognize the conventional usage of ‘surface weld’” as set forth in para. [0014] and [0039]
(brief, pages 16 and 18), which paragraphs appear at pages 4 and 7-8 of the specification and
refer to specification FIGs. 3, 4 and 5. We fail to find in the written description in the
specification the claim term “surface welding” or a specific definition thereof as indeed, there is
no specialized “welding” method associated with this term in the disclosure:
The piece 60 is welded, numeral 52 [of FIG. 3]. The welding may be accomplished,
numeral 52, by any operable approach, with and without a filler metal. Where used,
the filler metal is preferably but not necessarily of the same composition as the piece
60. . . . In FIG. 4, surface cracks 62 in the single piece 60 of the alloy are welded
closed with a filler metal of the same alloy composition as the piece 60, to produce a
filled crack 64. This approach is used to repair those surface cracks 62 that are present
following casting. [Page 9, ll. 3-9.]
Thus, we give the term “surfacing welding” its broadest reasonable interpretation which is to
weld the alloy at its surface to another metal, which is all that is disclosed in the specification,
even though the welding can serve additional purposes, mindful that limitations in the
specification are not to be read into the claims. See, e.g., Morris, supra; Zletz, supra (“During
patent prosecution the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow. When the applicant states the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the
claims are examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the
applicant’s invention and its relation to the prior art. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05,
162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).”).
We recognize that, as appellants point out, there is no express teaching in Sekino or
Hummel to weld the alloys of Sekino col. 2, ll. 1-11, at a surface of an article thereof or
otherwise (brief, pages 17-18). However, as we found above, Hummel discloses welding a
number of alloys including heat resistant alloys and nickel alloys as well as alloys based on
- 17 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007