Appeal No. 2006-0443 4
Application No. 10/347,273
The following two rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 14-16, 23-25, and 28-33 stand rejected for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Takahashi taken in combination with Cork.
2. Claims 17-19 and 26 stand rejected for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of Takahashi and Cork, as above, and further in view of Baldi.
After careful consideration of the entire record in light of the positions advanced on
appeal by the appellant and the examiner, we find that the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we
shall reverse the rejections which are before us. The basis of our decision follows.
The examiner concedes that Takahashi does not specify that ceramic particles
project above the wear-resistant coating layer. Neither does Takahashi teach or suggest
that the particle size of the ceramic powder be chosen to achieve such an effect. Indeed,
the examiner erroneously equates the ceramic particle size range disclosed in Takahashi
(1-100 microns) with the particle size of “MCrAlY” powder (5-120 microns) disclosed in the
instant specification. The MCrAlY is apparently a metallic alloy powder rather than a hard
ceramic material.
Accordingly, although Takahashi does disclose a wear-resistant coating material
which contains an organic binder, a nickel-based powder, and ceramic particles,
Takahashi does not teach or suggest that the ceramic particles should project above the
coating layer. Neither can we subscribe to the notion advanced by the examiner that this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007