Appeal No. 2006-2027
Application No. 10/735,370
1-7, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Subramanian in view of Stoffer and Ueda.2
Also, claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Subramanian in view of Stoffer, Ueda and
Taylor.3
Appellants do not separately argue any of the claims that
are grouped in the examiner’s separate rejections. Accordingly,
claims 13-17 stand or fall together, as do claims 1-7, 9 and 11.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 13-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Subramanian in view of Stoffer. We
agree with the examiner that Subramanian, like appellants,
discloses a method for protecting an article from high
temperatures by providing a bond coat on the surface of the
article, forming a thermal barrier coating on the bond coat,
wherein the thermal barrier coating is formed by first
depositing a primary ceramic coating, and then applying a
sintering inhibiting material to the surface of the primary
coating. The examiner also correctly finds that the sintering
inhibiting region can comprise appellants’ cerium-oxide.
Subramanian describes a sintering inhibiting material as a
2 This rejection subsumes the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9 and 11 under § 103 over Subramanian in view of
Ueda.
3 This rejection subsumes the examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under § 103 over Subramanian in view of Ueda and
Taylor.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007