Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
that the references teach the claimed invention. The examiner has not identified any
elements of the applied references that correspond to the claimed biasing member and
cam member and how the sliding direction of the airfoils is taught by the applied prior
art.
In summary, the examiner’s anticipation rejections are sustained with respect to
claims 18, 19, 26 and 71, but are not sustained with respect to claims 9, 10, 15, 17 and
24. The examiner’s obviousness rejections are sustained with respect to claims 27, 28,
39, 41 and 43, but are not sustained with respect to claims 16, 25, 42, 44, 45, 50-57, 72
and 74. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 9, 10, 15-19, 24-28,
39, 41-45, 50-57, 71, 72 and 74 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007