Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
chemical milling method consisting of a plurality of masking, removal, and
etching steps was known in the art (Blake, col. 1, ll. 31-35). While that
process is not the focus of the invention of Blake and, therefore, is not
discussed as a preferred process, use of a patent as a reference is not limited
to what the patentee describes as their own invention. In re Heck, 699 F.2d
1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re
Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). The
fact remains that Blake describes selective chemical milling can be
accomplished by repeatedly masking, removing, and etching. Balancing, as
required by the APA and Lowe, requires selective removal of metal from the
Blisk, and Blake describes a process of accomplishing selective removal.
Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to support the Examiner’s finding of a
reason or suggestion within the prior art for removing the maskant and
reimmersing the Blisk of the prior art to balance it. Appellants have not
convinced us of any reversible error by the Examiner with regard to the
rejection of claims 7 and 16.
3. Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, Appellants contend that nowhere does the
Examiner allege where the combination of prior art teaches or suggests
immersing solely the treated blade(s) in the etchant solution to achieve
rotational balance of the blisk according to claim 17 (Br. 11-12).
The Examiner contends that claim 17 reads broadly on the immersion
of any number of blades because any blades that are immersed are
effectively treated (Answer 10).
The issue is: Does the prior art suggest immersing in accordance with
claim 17?
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013