Appeal No. 1996-3977
Application 08/232,627
a multicomponent coating on at least a portion of the surface of the article, the coating
comprising a mixture of a low absorptance pigment, a low emittance material, a binder, and, optionally,
a high absorptance pigment, each of the components of the coating being stable when exposed to a
space environment.
16. A method for preparing a coated article, comprising the steps of:
providing an article having a surface;
preparing a selected composition of a multicomponent coating whose absorptance can be
selectively varied over a range of from about 0.20 to about 0.90, according to the selected composition
of the coating, and whose emittance can be selectively varied over a range of from about 0.25 to about
0.90, according to the selected composition of the coating; and
applying the selected composition of the multicomponent coating to the surface of the article.
The appealed claims are represented by claims 1 and 16. Claim 1 is drawn to an article2
coated at least partially with a multicomponent coating comprising a mixture of at least the three
required and one optional components specified in this claim, wherein each of the required and optional
components is stable when exposed to a space environment. Claim 16 is drawn to a method of coating
an article comprising at least applying thereto a selected composition of a multicomponent coating. The
absorptance of the multicomponent coating can be selectively varied over a range of from about 0.20 to
about 0.90, and the emittance thereof can be selectively varied over a range of from about 0.25 to
about 0.90, according to the selected composition of the coating. According to appellants, the “coating
has a controllable range of optical properties” and provides the “spacecraft designer . . . [with] a wide
range of variation in thermal properties of the coating, from which particular formulations can be
selected for specific applications” which are “stable when exposed to the space environment”
(specification, page 3; see also page 4, lines 32-36).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Shai 4,111,851 Sep. 5, 1978
2Appellants have not separately argued any specific claim rejected on appeal with respect to the
grounds of rejection based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103. See page 4 of the
principal brief. Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claim 16 with respect to the ground of
rejection under § 102(b) and on appealed claims 1 and 16 with respect to the ground of rejection under
§ 103. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007