Appeal No. 2006-1678
Application No. 10/677,869
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in full agreement with the
examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over
the cited prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer,
which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for
emphasis only.
We consider first the examiner's § 102 rejection over
Fuller. Appellants disagree with the examiner that the system
of Fuller can be used as a High Velocity Oxy-Fuel combustion
thermal spray system, and submit an article by Dr. Ronald W.
Smith (Exhibit A) to show that the actual equipment and designs
used in High Velocity Oxy-Fuel combustion spray processes do not
correspond to the system disclosed by Fuller. According to
appellants, "[n]one of the system [sic, systems] disclosed in
Fuller et al. is capable of carrying out a High Velocity Oxy-
Fuel combustion thermal spray process as can be seen from the
attached exhibit" (page 11 of principal brief, second
paragraph). Appellants maintain that "[t]he recited thermal
spray processes in claim 1 cannot be conducted using the system
disclosed in Fuller et al." (id.). However, appellants have not
refuted the examiner's reasonable comparison of the apparatus
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007