Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
in turbine blades. Moreover, Fishter describes a IN-100 nickel superalloy, a
metal within the scope of claim 19, for such a use. The evidence is
sufficient to support the determination of the Examiner.
III. DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject the claims as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Specifically, we sustain the rejection of (1) claims 1, 9, and 10 over
the APA or Lowe with Walker, (2) the rejection of claims 2-4 and 11-13
over those references in combination with Fishter, (3) the rejection of 5-7
and 14-17 over the APA or Lowe with Walker, Fishter and Blake, and (4)
the rejection of claims 8 and 18-20 over the APA or Lowe, with Walker,
Fishter, and Law.
IV. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
Jagtiani & Guttag
10363-A Democracy Lane
Fairfax, VA 22030
18
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Last modified: September 9, 2013