Ex Parte Wang - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-1316                                                         
          Application No. 09/735,503                                                   

                               APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER                                 
               The subject matter on appeal is directed to gas turbine                 
          bucket (blade) construction, wherein a natural frequency of the              
          turbine bucket (blade) is “tuned” using secondary orientation.               
          See the specification, pages 1 and 4.  The selection of the                  
          secondary orientation (placement of a crystal seed along a                   
          desired direction) “effect[s] a desired percentage change in                 
          turbine bucket natural frequencies.”  See the specification,                 
          page 4.  This percentage change, in turn, improves fatigue                   
          resistance of the turbine bucket (blade).  See the specification,            
          page 1, lines 10-19 and page 3, lines 14-15.  Details of the                 
          appealed subject matter are recited in representative claims 1               
          and 62, which are reproduced below:                                          
               1.   A method of manufacturing a turbine bucket comprising:             
               (a) investment casting the turbine bucket with a single                 
               crystal alloy; and                                                      
               (b) tuning a natural frequency of the turbine bucket                    
               without modifying physical features of the turbine                      
               bucket, wherein step (b)is practiced by, prior to step                  
               (a), placing a crystal seed along a desired direction                   
               2 According to the appellant (Brief, page 4), “[c]laims 2-4 stand       
          or fall together with claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 stand or fall               
          together with claim 6.”  Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we          
          select claims 1 and 6 and decide the propriety of the examiner’s             
          Section 102(b)rejection set forth in the Answer based on these claims        
          consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003) and 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)          
          (vii)(2004).                                                                 
                                         -2-                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007