Appeal No. 2006-0559 3
Application No. 10/085,527
focuses upon controlling the spray parameters of a particle jet used to abrade and roughen
a substrate prior to coating.
In response to the rejection, appellant merely refers to an amendment after final
which was submitted in an attempt to overcome the rejection. However, that amendment
was not entered by the examiner and, thus, is not before us. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 rejection is summarily affirmed.
In considering the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, we shall follow the convention
adopted by the examiner in interpreting the “spray parameters” recited in claim 1 as
referring to a spray jet emanating from the recited “particle source”, rather than being
associated with a subsequently applied ceramic coating.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, we have carefully considered the
evidentiary record in light of the positions taken by the examiner and the appellant. Having
done so, we conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter on appeal, which the appellant has not
adequately rebutted. Accordingly, we shall affirm each of the alternative rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
First, we note that the claims have been rejected based upon Taylor alone. Taylor
(col. 3, line 60 - col. 4, line 14) discloses a method for roughening the tip of a gas turbine
blade prior to application of a zirconium oxide coating by abrasive grit blasting or,
alternatively, by using a high pressure pure waterjet. Taylor further indicates that jet
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007