Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
motivation originating from within the prior art for combining the teachings
of the applied references?
The Examiner has supported the finding of a suggestion by a
preponderance of the evidence. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
findings with regard to what Blake teaches. Appellants merely assert that
Blake does not teach applying the maskant to blisk blades, but instead
applies the maskant to airplane skin (Br. 10). There is no dispute in that
regard. The suggestion to apply a maskant to a blisk blade comes from the
problem to be solved, i.e., the problem of treating only those portions of the
blisk blades where material is to be removed. Blake provides evidence that
it was known to solve that problem by applying a maskant before immersion
in the chemical milling bath to protect the areas where material is not to be
removed. Walker also teaches applying a mask before immersion (Walker,
p. 512, “Steps in chemical milling”).
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 5.
2. Claims 7 and 16
With respect to claims 7 and 16, Appellants contend that Blake does
not teach or suggest that reimmersion after removal of the maskant is
desirable, such removal and reimmersion being required by claims 7 and 16
(Br. 11). However, as found by the Examiner, Blake indicates that a
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013