Appeal No. 1998-2409
Application 08/398,259
apparatus such as a heating furnace, heat exchanger, burner of
heating equipment, automobile exhaust converter etc.” (col. 1,
lines 17-20), which are the type of applications envisioned by
McGill. Consequently, the combined teachings of Moroishi and
McGill would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, applying McGill’s coatings or layers to Moroishi’s
substrate to obtain the benefit in Moroishi’s apparatus of
McGill’s thermal barrier layer system.
Appellants argue that Moroishi does not disclose a coating
and McGill does not mention sulfur (brief, pages 4-9). This
argument is not well taken because appellants are attacking the
references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426,
208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58,
159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968). As discussed above, Moroishi and
McGill, taken together, would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, applying McGill’s coatings or layers
to Moroishi’s essentially sulfur free substrate.
Appellants argue that neither of the references discloses
the limitations in claims 3-6 (brief, page 9). However, the
limitation in claim 3 that the substrate is fabricated from a
material having a free sulfur content of less than about 1 ppm
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007