Appeal No. 2006-2072 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/814,066
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We initially note
that to support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
The examiner finds:
Cain et al. discloses a bladed rotor comprising a hub 24
having a main body with slots 22 and a plurality of blades 10
each having an attachment 14 occupying one of the slots 22
and having both a proximal and distal end where the
proximal end is rounded (See Figure 1) since the blade
attachment is presumed to have the same profile from the
proximal end to the distal end [final rejection at page 2].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007