Appeal No. 1997-2023
Application No. 08/197,497
Furthermore, Sarin ‘384 discloses the additive metal
(zirconium) was placed in a separate vessel disposed inside the
reactor while aluminum chips were placed in a vessel outside the
reactor (col. 4, ll. 29-36). Claim 1 on appeal recites that both
source metals (the aluminum and the additive element) are
disposed outside the coating retort.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established that every limitation of claim 1 on appeal is
described by Sarin ‘384. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sarin ‘384 is
reversed.
B. The Rejections under § 103
The deficiencies of Sarin ‘384 as discussed above are also
present in the rejections advanced against claims 4-12 and
13-19 under section 103. Sarin ‘574 does not remedy the
deficiency of the primary reference to Sarin ‘384 regarding the
formation of an aluminide coating since Sarin ‘574 is directed to
the same type of two phase ceramic oxide coating (see col. 5-6).
Furthermore, contrary to the examiner’s analysis of Sarin ‘574
(Answer, pages 5-6), this reference does not disclose or suggest
the sequential flow of the first halide precursor gas through the
aluminum source, leaving an unreacted portion to later react with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007