Ex Parte Chandley et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0594                                                        
          Application No. 09/740,708                                                  

          molten metallic material, cleaning the alloy to remove the                  
          metallic material thereon, heating the alloy in an oxygen-bearing           
          atmosphere at elevated superambient temperature to form a surface           
          oxide thereon, and re-contacting the alloy having the surface               
          film thereon with the molten metallic material.                             
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Nazmy et al. (Nazmy)              5,286,443         Feb. 14, 1994           
          Chandley et al. (Chandley)        6,283,195 B1      Sep.  4, 2001           
                                                       (filed Feb. 2, 1999)           
          Choudhury et al. (Choudhury)      6,443,212 B1      Sep.  3, 2002           
                                                       (filed Oct. 1, 1999)           
          Chandley et al. (WO '973)         WO 00/45973       Aug. 10, 2000           
          (PCT International Application)                                             
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method of               
          increasing the service life of a titanium aluminide alloy while             
          it is in contact with a molten material comprising aluminum.  One           
          method involves including a rare earth element in the titanium              
          aluminide alloy (independent claims 10 and 21), and another                 
          method entails heating the alloy in an oxygen-bearing atmosphere            
          to form a surface oxide thereon (claim 16).                                 
               Appealed claims 10-15 and 21-24 stand rejected under                   
          35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO '973 in view of            
          Nazmy.  Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as             
          being unpatentable over the stated combination of references                
          further in view of Choudhury.  In addition, claims 10-15 and                
          21-24 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of               

                                         -2-                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007