Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
Claim 17 requires selectively immersing solely the blade or blades to
be treated until the blisk is balanced. There is no limit on the number of
blades that can be immersed, however, blades that are not treated are not
immersed. That is not to say that the claim excludes masking portions of
blades to be treated.
The prior art provides a suggestion of immersing just those portions of
the workpiece to be treated and, therefore, we find a reason or suggestion to
immerse only those blades to be treated in conformance with claim 17. This
is because, as described by Walker, chemical milling is a process in which
the part is immersed in an etchant and the resulting chemical action removes
the metal (Walker, p. 511, col. 2). Walker describes applying maskants to
the areas to be immersed but not etched (Walker, pp. 511-12), but also
describes producing tapers by immersing the portion to be tapered and
withdrawing the workpiece from the etchant at a predetermined rate
(Walker, caption to Fig. 28-3). Those portions out of contact are not further
etched. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that only those
portions of metal contacting the etching solution within the bath will be
treated. It follows that it would have been obvious to place only those
portions to be treated in the etchant bath when that was possible.
The prior art suggests immersing as claimed. Appellants have not
convinced us of a reversible error on the part of the Examiner with regard to
the rejection of claims 17.
D. The Rejection of Claims 8 and 18-20
Claims 8 and 18-20 are rejected over APA or Lowe in view of
Walker, Fishter, and Law.
1. Claim 8
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013