Appeal No. 1998-2295
Application No. 08/435,902
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Quets, Wilbers
and Blackburn. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 to 20 are rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wolfla and
Hodshire. Claims 2, 10, 11 and 17 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Wolfla, Hodshire and Blackburn. (Answer, pp. 4 to 9).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the rejections of claims 2, 6 and
9 to 20 are not well founded. However, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7
and 8. Our reasons appear below.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 to 20 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wolfla and
Hodshire. The subject matter of claim 1 describes an article comprising a titanium substrate
and a coating directly on the substrate that comprises a mixture of a metal matrix and
ceramic particles. Wolfla describes coating substrates, useful as turbine engine blades, with
a coating comprising a metal and ceramic particles. (Col. 1, l. 68 to col. 2, l. 58).
Wolfla discloses suitable substrate material is used in various corrosive environments
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007