Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
(c) determining which of the at least one blade should be treated with the
chemical etchant to correct the rotational imbalance of the blisk; and
(d) selectively treating the determined at least one blade of the blisk with
a chemical etchant of the metal that the at least one blade is made of for a
Appellants contend that “step (b) of Claim 9 (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) is not
entirely taught in [the APA].” (Reply Br. 4). Appellants similarly argue that
steps (c) and (d), with emphasis on the portions of those steps directed to
chemical milling, are not entirely taught by the APA (Reply Br. 4-5).1 The
Examiner responds with citations to specific portions of the APA to support
the finding that the APA teaches the claimed steps (b), (c), and (d) albeit in
the context of mechanical milling instead of chemical milling (Answer 7).
The Examiner relies upon Walker to support the finding of a reason,
suggestion, or motivation for using chemical milling in the conventional
balancing process. Appellants also again contend that the Examiner’s
finding of a reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine the teachings of
the APA with those of Walker is erroneous (Reply Br. 5). The dispositive
issue, therefore, is the same as that addressed above in reference to claim 1:
Has 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?
For reasons similar to those provided above in reference to claim 1, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a reason,
1 Appellants concede in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has properly
identified step (a) of claim 9 (Reply Br. 4).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013