Appeal No. 2006-1096
Application No. 10/453,872
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
perform the cold gas spraying process of Amateau under the
claimed vacuum conditions.
While appellants emphasize operational differences between
the cold gas spraying process of Amateau and the detonation
process of Eidelman, Eidelman expressly teaches that a problem
encountered by another conventional continuous spraying process,
turbulent gas flow in the vicinity of the substrate surface, is
ameliorated. Hence, we agree with the examiner that Eidelman
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that
problematic turbulent gas flow at the substrate surface can be
reduced by using vacuum conditions in a variety of spray
processes, including detonation processes, as well as convention
HVOF and cold gas spraying processes. Also, we are convinced
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
appreciated that operating at reduced pressure would save on the
amount of carrier gas needed for detonation, HVOF and cold gas
spraying processes. Furthermore, appellants have not informed us
of any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
reasonably expected that the advantages disclosed by Eidelman for
using vacuum conditions would not translate to cold gas spraying
processes.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007