Appeal No. 2006-0559 2
Application No. 10/085,527
together for purposes of this appeal. Therefore, we shall limit our consideration to claim 1,
the first of two independent claims, which reads as follows:
1. A method for the surface preparation of a metal component having a curved
surface to accept a ceramic coating comprising:
measuring a contour line geometry of the curved surface;
inputting the measured geometry into a control system; and
controlling a plurality of spray parameters of the ceramic coating via the control
system based on the geometry to direct a particle source toward the metal component, the
spray parameters comprising: a blasting distance, a blasting intensity, a blasting angle and
a blasting time such that at least one of the parameters remain constant during the surface
preparation.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Taylor et al. (Taylor) 5,520,516 May 28, 1996
McComas et al. (McComas) Re 35,611 Sept. 23, 1997
Kaiba et al. (Kaiba) 6,096,132 Aug. 1, 2000
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-10 and 12-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
2. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness in view of Taylor alone, or in view of Taylor taken in combination with
McComas and Kaiba.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection, the examiner points out, and we
agree, that there is no descriptive support in appellant’s specification for controlling spray
parameters “of the ceramic coating” as recited in claim 1. Rather, the specification only
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007