Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
remove material from the metal workpiece. When faced with the problem of
removing metal to balance blisks, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
selected chemical milling because, as discussed by Walker, chemical milling
can remove material to exacting tolerances, has low tooling costs, and does
not result in burrs. Contrary to the arguments of Appellants (Br. 5),
“exacting tolerances” as used in Walker refers the ability to closely control
the amount of material removed, it does not refer to making “exact blades”
within the blisk. The evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the
Examiner.
Because the Examiner established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, a reason, suggestion, or motivation originating from within the
prior art for combining the teachings of the applied references, we conclude
that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness that has
not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants. Appellants have not convinced
us of any reversible error by the Examiner with regard to the rejection of
claim 1.
2. Claim 9
The Examiner also rejected claim 9 over the combination of either the
APA or Lowe with Walker. Claim 9 is directed to a method for rotationally
balancing a blisk. This claim sets forth the specific steps of balancing as
follows:
(a) evaluating the rotationally imbalanced blisk to determine the direction
and magnitude of the rotational imbalance;
(b) identifying at least one blade of the rotationally imbalanced blisk for
potential treatment with a chemical etchant to correct the rotational
imbalance of the blisk;
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013