Appeal 2007-0882
Application 10/702,987
merely in degree from the prior art (see In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139,
40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Providing the nickel-base superalloy article that has previously been in
service (Claims 1-19 and 21)
Appellants argue that there is no teaching in White of the limitation
"providing the nickel-base superalloy article that has previously been in
service" in respect to White's process. Reply 4. Appellant notes that White
is concerned with repairing cracks, and that cracks can arise for reasons
other than service. Reply 5.
We are in agreement with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that White’s process is applicable to repair
of articles that have been in service based on White’s disclosure that cracks
may occur when the article is in operation or during manufacture. Answer 4.
(See Finding of Fact 3). Moreover, because the articles disclosed in White
are used in the same applications as the claimed superalloy articles (see
Finding of Fact 1), we find that the Examiner has reasonably concluded that,
when in service, White’s articles would be subjected to temperatures in the
range recited in claims 3 and 18. Answer 7.
Providing the nickel-base superalloy article comprising a gas turbine
stationary flowpath shroud (Claims 4-6, 8-11, 15-19 and 21)
Appellants argue that “[t]here are at least two distinctly different types
of shrouds in a gas turbine engine.” Reply 7. Appellants contend that the
Examiner has not explained how the language of White could be construed
as directed to a "stationary flowpath shroud" as specified in the claims, e.g.
claims 4 and 15. We are in agreement with the Examiner’s finding (see
Answer 7) that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013