Appeal No. 1998-2295 Application No. 08/435,902 Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wolfla, Hodshire and Blackburn. The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Quets and Wilbers to reject claims 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner adds Blackburn to the teaching of Quets and Wilbers to reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse each of these rejections. Quets describes duplex coatings for various substrates. Suitable substrates include titanium alloys. (Col. 4). The duplex coating is the combination of an undercoat layer comprising a metal matrix such as tungsten carbide-cobalt, and a top coat layer formed of a ceramic material. The coating of Quets differs from the coating of claims 9 and 12 in that the ceramic material is not mixed with the metal matrix. Quets does not disclose that the top coat and undercoat are mixed together. The Examiner does not rely on Wilbers to remedy this deficiency. The Examiner cites Wilbers to teach “matching coefficients of thermal expansion between gas turbine part substrates”. (Answer, p. 5). The matching of thermal expansion coefficients would not motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to form a coating that is a mixture of a metal matrix and a ceramic material as required by claims 9 -7-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007