Appeal No. 1998-2295
Application No. 08/435,902
Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wolfla, Hodshire and
Blackburn.
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Quets and Wilbers to reject claims
9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner adds Blackburn to the
teaching of Quets and Wilbers to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse each
of these rejections.
Quets describes duplex coatings for various substrates. Suitable substrates include
titanium alloys. (Col. 4). The duplex coating is the combination of an undercoat layer
comprising a metal matrix such as tungsten carbide-cobalt, and a top coat layer formed of a
ceramic material. The coating of Quets differs from the coating of claims 9 and 12 in that
the ceramic material is not mixed with the metal matrix. Quets does not disclose that the top
coat and undercoat are mixed together. The Examiner does not rely on Wilbers to remedy
this deficiency. The Examiner cites Wilbers to teach “matching coefficients of thermal
expansion between gas turbine part substrates”. (Answer, p. 5). The matching of thermal
expansion coefficients would not motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to form a
coating that is a mixture of a metal matrix and a ceramic material as required by claims 9
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007