Appeal No. 2006-1096
Application No. 10/453,872
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we fully concur with the examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of Section 103 in
view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in
the answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants acknowledge that Amateau discloses a process for
producing a coating on a work piece by a cold spraying process
wherein a carrier gas is released in a cold gas spray gun and
spray particles are accelerated toward the work piece. As
acknowledged by the examiner, Amateau does not teach that the
cold gas spraying process is carried out under the claimed vacuum
conditions. However, there is no dispute that Eidelman teaches a
thermal spray coating process conducted under vacuum conditions
for the purpose of generating higher particle acceleration and
velocities and improving coating quality. Eidelman also teaches
that a key advantage of employing vacuum conditions is the
effective removal or reduction in the amount of carrier gases
used (see paragraph 0032). Consequently, although Eidelman is
directed to a detonation spray coating process, and not the cold
gas spraying process of Amateau, we agree with the examiner that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007