Appeal 2007-2429
Application 10/226,922
as to the scope of these terms, while also giving the Appellants an opportunity to
respond thereto. In so doing, the Examiner must determine: (1) whether the term
“ramped transition portion” encompasses concave or curved transition regions of
the type shown by Noda, Weiler, or Fant and (2) whether the “ramped transition
portion” is a different structure than the “fillet” portion.
In response to this remand, the Examiner is also required to consider the
patentability of Appellants' claims over Brenneis in view of the disclosure of
Hendrix (US 3,890,062, issued June 17, 1975). Hendrix specifically discloses an
axial-flow compressor blade with a transition region for reducing operational
bending stresses, wherein said blade has a “tapered” portion (c) and a “concave”
portion (d) (Hendrix, col. 2, ll. 42-58 and fig. 3). The Examiner is urged to
compare the “tapered” and the “concave” portions of Hendrix with the “ramped
transition portion” and the “fillet” portion of Appellants’ invention, evaluate the
combinability of the reference teachings with Brenneis in light of the guidance
provided by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007), and then to make a determination of patentability.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013