Appeal No. 2006-0443 5
Application No. 10/347,273
feature can be inferred from the disclosure in Takahashi that the ceramic particles are
“dispersed and distributed evenly” in the applied coating.
The secondary references relied upon by the examiner do not cure the deficiency of
Takahashi. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse each of the rejections at issue.
Furthermore, we remand the involved application to the examiner to further consider
the grounds of rejection in view of the following:
First, we note the apparent admission in appellant’s specification (page 1) that,
conventionally, a cladding is abrasive in the sense that it “works its way into a run-in
coating of an opposite, second component”. Apparently, it is the ceramic particles in
appellant’s cladding formulation which provide this characteristic (page 4, lines 1-4; page
6, lines 18-21). Accordingly, the examiner should reconsider the question of obviousness
from the standpoint of whether those of ordinary skill in the art, aware of the need for a
cladding to be relatively abrasive, would have concluded that a cladding containing
ceramic particles, as in Takahashi, should be formulated so that ceramic particles project
above a layer of slip in order to obtain the benefit of their abrasive properties.
Second, with regard to claims 20-22 and 27, the examiner should reconsider his
withdrawal of the rejection of those claims in view of the apparent admission in appellant’s
specification (page 1) that MCrAlY powder is a conventional powder used in “a known
process for producing a cladding”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007