Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
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 8.
2. Claim 19
With regard to claim 19, Appellants contend that the Examiner has
failed to address where Law, or the other prior art relied upon by the
Examiner, teaches the use of the metals recited in claim 19 in a reference
panel.
The Examiner responds that the metals are well known for the
construction of turbine blades, as shown by Fishter for example, and,
therefore, these metals would have been obvious for use as reference panel
metals (Answer 6).
The issue is whether the prior art supports the determination of the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to use the metals of claim 19 in a
reference panel.
Appellants have not convinced us of a reversible error on the part of
the Examiner. Law teaches using the metal that is to be etched as the
“indicator layer” (Law, col. 1, ll. 53-56). For a turbine blade etching
process, the reference panel metal will be the same as the turbine blade
metal. The Examiner finds that the metals of claim 19 were well known for
the construction of turbine blades and offers Fishter as evidence (Answer 6).
Appellants do not dispute that the claimed metals were well known for use
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013