Ex Parte Zabawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 18, 2006

10814066 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS J. ZABAWA
____________

Appeal No. 2006-2072
Application No. 10/814,066
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before CRAWFORD, NAPPI, and FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 2,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
The appellant's invention relates to a fan rotor of the type used in an aircraft gas
turbine engine which includes a hub capable of rotating about a rotational axis and an
array of blades extending radially from the hub (specification, p. 1). A copy of the
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.

Appeal No. 2006-2072
Application No. 10/814,066

Παγε 2
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Cain et al. (Cain) 4,417,854 Nov. 29, 1983

THE REJECTION

Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Cain.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 30, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed May 23, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.

1 The final rejection p.2 erroneously states that the rejection relates to claims 10 and 21.
However, as the application does not include a claim 10 or a claim 21 and the answer refers to the
rejection of claims 1 and 2, we assume that the rejection is directed to claims 1 and 2. The cover sheet of
the final rejection correctly refers to the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Appeal No. 2006-2072
Application No. 10/814,066

Παγε 3

OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We initially note
that to support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
The examiner finds:
Cain et al. discloses a bladed rotor comprising a hub 24
having a main body with slots 22 and a plurality of blades 10
each having an attachment 14 occupying one of the slots 22
and having both a proximal and distal end where the
proximal end is rounded (See Figure 1) since the blade
attachment is presumed to have the same profile from the
proximal end to the distal end [final rejection at page 2].

Appeal No. 2006-2072
Application No. 10/814,066

Παγε 4
The appellant argues that Cain's cylindrical surface 18 is not the proximal end,
analogous to the end 88 of the invention but is rather is analogous to the base 50 in
appellant's invention.
We will sustain this rejection. Although, the appellant may be correct that the
cylindrical surface 18 in Cain is analogous to appellant's base 50, this cylindrical surface
is a surface that is proximal to the center of the turbine disk. We note that neither claim
1 nor claim 2 recite what the end is proximal to and therefore, end 18 of Cain is a
proximal end as broadly claimed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.

Appeal No. 2006-2072
Application No. 10/814,066

Παγε 5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ROBERT E. NAPPI ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANTON W. FETTING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-2072
Application No. 10/814,066

Παγε 6
Pratt & Whitney M/S 132-13 400 Main Street ast Hartford, CT 06108 E
MEC/jrg
Comment [jvn1]: Type address