Ex Parte STRUTT et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2002-0928                                                        
          Application 09/315,251                                                      

               nanometer  range,  about  one-half  of  the  atoms  in  a              
               nanocrystalline or a nanophase solid reside at grain or                
               particle interfaces.                                                   
               Claim 1 is believed to be adequately representative of the             
          appealed subject matter and is reproduced below for a more facile           
          understanding of the claimed invention:                                     
               Claim 1. A method for forming a nanostructured coating,                
               comprising                                                             
                                                                                     
               dispersing a nanostructured material in a liquid medium by             
               ultrasound to form a solution having dispersed therein                 
               nanostructured particles having particle sizes in the range of         
               from 3 to 30 nanometers;                                               
                                                                                     
               injecting the solution directly into the feed of a thermal             
               spray apparatus; and                                                   
                                                                                     
               spray coating the solution onto an article to form a                   
               nanostructured coating on the article.                                 
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
               The references of record which are being relied on by the              
          examiner as evidence of obviousness are:                                    
          Ozaki et al. (Ozaki)          4,746,468           May 24, 1988              
          Gitzhofer et al. (Gitzhofer)  5,609,921           March 11, 1997            
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1 through 5 and 8 through 12 stand rejected as being            
          unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as the subject matter therein            
          claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in            
          this art at the time appellants made their invention.                       
                                       OPINION                                        
               We begin by determining the scope and content of appellants'           

                                          3                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007