Appeal Number: 2006-0866
Application Number: 10/086,148
The appellants’ invention relates to a method for replacing a damaged Thermal
Barrier Coating (TBC) ceramic layer. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of the claims which are appended to the brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Skelly 5,419,971 May 30, 1995
Nagaraj 5,723,078 Mar. 3, 1998
Claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 21 to 23 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by Nakaraj.
Claims 2 to 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being anticipated by
Nagaraj in view of Skelly.
Claim 2 recites:
2. A process for localized repair of a turbine component having a surface with
a damaged thermal barrier coating system comprising the steps of:
cleaning a spalled region of the surface of the component with damage;
texturing the surface with damage to produce a textured surface having an array of
spaced grooves of predetermined groove spacing, predetermined groove geometry,
and predetermined wall angle with the exposed surface by impinging a high energy
beam on the exposed surface to produce the array; and
depositing a replacement thermal barrier coating over substantially only the
textured surface.
The appellants contend that Nagaraj does not anticipate the subject matter of
claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 21 to 23 and 27 because in appellants’ opinion, Nagaraj does not
disclose a step in which the bond layer is texturized so as to produce a textured
surface having an array of spaced grooves of predetermined groove spacing,
predetermined groove geometry and predetermined wall angle (“bond texturizing
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013