Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
The Examiner rejects claims 2-4 and 11-13 over APA or Lowe in
view of Walker and Fishter. We focus on claim 2 as the claims have not
been separately argued. Claim 2 requires that the chemical etchant be an
aqueous etchant solution comprising at least one strong acid. The Examiner
relied upon Fishter as evidence that such etchant solutions were known in
the art for chemical milling nickel superalloys, a type of metal used in blisks
(4-5).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to provide a proper
motivation for combining the teachings of Fishter with the other references
(Br. 7-8). Therefore, the dispositive issue, again, is whether 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.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding of the
Examiner. Fishter describes chemical milling nickel superalloy metal of the
type used to produce blisks (Fishter, col. 1, ll. 7-17) using an aqueous
solution containing at least one strong acid, i.e. hydrochloric and nitric acids
(Fishter, col. 2, ll. 5-22). These facts are not disputed by Appellants. The
suggestion flows from the express teaching of Fishter that such strong acids
will chemically mill blisks. We do not agree with Appellants that the
teaching in Fishter is inadequate to suggest adjusting dimensions of the blisk
blades (Br. 8). Appellants acknowledge that Fishter uses chemical milling to
remove a surface layer from a machined article (Br. 8). That Fishter
discloses that removal as part of an inspection process for surface defects
does not negate the teaching that the process is one of chemical milling
involving removal of metal. That the milling of Fishter is said not to have
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013