Ex Parte Ackerman et al - Page 2


         Appeal No. 2006-2027                                                       
         Application No. 10/735,370                                                 

              depositing a primary ceramic coating onto the exposed                 
         surface of the bond coat,                                                  
              depositing a cerium-precursor compound onto an exposed                
         surface of the primary ceramic coating, and                                
              heating the cerium-oxide-precursor compound in an oxygen-             
         containing atmosphere to form cerium oxide adjacent to the                 
         exposed surface of the primary ceramic coating.                            

              The examiner relies upon the following references in the              
         rejections of the appealed claims:                                         
         Taylor et al. (Taylor)  5,520,516  May  28, 1996                           
         Ueda et al. (Ueda)   5,697,992  Dec. 16, 1997                              
         Stoffer et al. (Stoffer)  5,932,083  Aug.  3, 1999                         
         Subramanian     US 6,296,945  Oct.  2, 2001                                
              Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of              
         protecting an article, such as a component of a gas turbine                
         engine, that is subjected to high temperatures.  The method                
         entails forming a thermal barrier coating on the article by                
         depositing a primary ceramic coating, depositing a cerium-oxide-           
         precursor compound onto the primary ceramic coating, and heating           
         the cerium-oxide-precursor compound in an oxygen atmosphere to             
         form cerium-oxide where cerium is in the +4 oxidation state.               
              Appealed claims 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                  
         § 102(b) as being anticipated by Subramanian in view of Stoffer.1          
         Claims 13-17 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as               
         being unpatentable over Subramanian in view of Stoffer.  Claims            
                                                                                   
         1   This rejection subsumes the rejection of claims 13-17 under § 102 over Subramanian alone.
                                         2                                          


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007