Ex Parte Skoog et al - Page 5

                Appeal 2007-0950                                                                                 
                Application 11/099,264                                                                           

                particles in liquid suspension and not in liquid suspension into the plasma                      
                spray jet as suggested by Gambino and to use an appropriate particle (id. 8).                    
                       With respect to the first ground of rejection, Appellants contend the                     
                claim limitation “injecting the suspension into a plasma jet of a plasma spray                   
                device” is not taught by Strutt and Peterson (Br. 5).  Appellants contend                        
                Strutt, at column 7, lines 50-55, as relied on by the Examiner, teaches                          
                introducing a suspension as an aerosol into the gas feed of a plasma gun and                     
                thus prior to forming the plasma jet exiting the gun (id.).  Appellants contend                  
                Peterson teaches conventional introduction of powder particles fluidized                         
                with feed gas into a plasma jet, but not a suspension of particles in a liquid                   
                carrier (id., citing Peterson col. 4, ll. 3-5).  Appellants contend Peterson does                
                not disclose that the term “fluidize” connotes “particles entrained in a liquid”                 
                but rather uses the term in its common meaning of particles suspended in a                       
                gas (Reply Br. 2).  Appellants contend Strutt as relied on teaches away from                     
                the combination with Peterson because of the introduction of the suspension                      
                into the gas feed, as contrasted with Strutt’s “other embodiments which                          
                describe introduction points for materials that are not discussed with respect                   
                to the second embodiment” relied on (Br. 5-6).  Appellants contend Peterson                      
                teaches conventional introduction of particles fluidized in feed gas, and not                    
                in a liquid, into the flame of a plasma spray gun, and one of ordinary skill in                  
                the art would understand the injection locations are limited to those                            
                disclosed (id. 6-7).  Appellants thus contend impermissible hindsight was                        
                used to arrive at the claimed invention by combining these references (id. 7).                   
                       With respect to the second ground of rejection, Appellants contend                        
                Gambino is non-analogous art as it is directed to producing flexible magnets                     


                                                       5                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013