Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
Blake US 5,126,005 Jun. 30, 1992
Law US 5,259,920 Nov. 9, 1993
Lowe US 6,077,002 Jun. 20, 2000
John R. Walker, Machining Fundamentals 511-16 (2000)
The Examiner also relies upon the admitted prior art (APA) disclosed
in the Specification at paragraphs [0002] through [0008].
The specific rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) advanced by the
Examiner are:
1. Claims 1, 9, and 10 rejected over the combination of either the APA or
Lowe with Walker.
2. Claims 2-4 and 11-13 rejected over the combination of either the APA or
Lowe with Walker and further with Fishter.
3. Claims 5-7 and 14-17 rejected over the combination of either the APA or
Lowe with Walker and Fishter and further combined with Blake.
4. Claims 8 and 18-20 rejected over the combination of the APA or Lowe
with Walker and Fishter, and further combined with Law.
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 10
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 9, and 10 over the combination of
either the APA or Lowe with Walker. The chemical milling method of
claim 1, the broadest of the rejected claims, requires a step of selectively
treating at least one blade of a blisk with a chemical etchant.
1. Claim 1
We first consider the contentions as they apply to the broadest claim,
i.e., claim 1. The dispositive issue arises out of Appellants’ contention that
there is no proper motivation for combining the teachings of the APA or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013