Appeal 2007-0164
Application 10/286,122
Appellants’ principal argument is that neither Mehta, nor any of the
cited references, teaches repairing a stationary shroud of a gas turbine
engine, as presently claimed. However, we concur with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the requisite reasonable
expectation of success in applying the repair method disclosed by Mehta to
stationary shrouds of a gas turbine engine. It is well settled that absolute
predictability is not required for a finding of obviousness under § 103, but
only a reasonable expectation of success. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988). While Appellants contend
that “[n]o other portion of the gas turbine engine is repaired in the same
manner as the stationary turbine shroud” (principal Br. 6, third paragraph),
Appellants have not proffered any objective evidence which establishes that
repair methods used on other components of gas turbine engines are not used
on the stationary shroud. Manifestly, counsel’s arguments in the Brief are
no substitute for such objective evidence, and Appellants’ have presented no
evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art of repairing stationary shrouds
in a gas turbine engine would not have considered the laser cladding process
of Mehta to be applicable to such stationary shrouds.
Appellants also take issue with the Examiner’s reasoning that
common sense would have dictated that damaged material from the
stationary shroud should be removed before repair. However, the Examiner
specifically cited Islam and Dimitrienko for teaching the need to remove or
eliminate damaged areas of turbine parts before repairing by laser cladding.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013