Appeal 2007-1434
Application 10/610,718
ISSUES
The sole issue submitted for our decision in this appeal is whether claims 1-
25 lack novelty over the applied prior art.
In addition, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) we enter
new rejections under the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
FINDINGS OF FACT
It is our finding that Appellants claims are directed to a fluidic chevron and a
thermal acoustic shield. The term “fluidic chevron” has been adopted by
Appellants to analogize to prior art mechanical chevrons the fluidic injectors that
generate vortices by directing flow at an angle into a jet stream. We further find
that Appellants in the Specification define the claimed subject matter of a thermal
acoustic shield as “a thin layer of flow that partially surrounds the main jet 32 and
is characterized by a proper combination of velocity and speed of sound.”
Specification, ¶ 0024.
Turning to the references of record, Hoch discloses a system and method for
reducing aircraft engine noise by using mechanical extractors to extract exhaust
streams to create fractional jets. In contrast to Appellants’ claimed subject matter,
the extractors disclosed in Hoch appear to be completely mechanical and do not
operate on the principles of fluidics.
Campos is also concerned with a system and method for reducing aircraft
noise. In Figures 9 and 11, Campos discloses techniques for causing a portion of
the exhaust nozzles wall to move. Campos utilizes corrugated or undulating
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013