Appeal No. 2006-2027
Application No. 10/735,370
second paragraph), the examiner also maintains that the
reference teaches that the cerium-oxide compound is a stable
one and, therefore, CeO2, i.e., cerium-oxide with cerium in the
+4 oxidation state. Clearly, if the cerium-oxide applied to the
primary ceramic coating of Subramanian is the stable CeO2, it
is not the cerium-oxide-precursor compound of claim 1 wherein
cerium is not in the +4 oxidation state. Also, whereas the
heating step of claim 1 converts the precursor compound to
cerium-oxide with cerium in the +4 oxidation state, the heating
step of Subramanian reacts CeO2 with the thermal barrier coating
to produce “an oxide of A and C or an oxide of B and C” (column
5, lines 44-45). The examiner incorrectly states that “[w]hile
later reaction of the CezOw and the primary ceramic is provided,
at this point, CezOw is provided as a coating, which is all that
is required by the claim” (page 16 of answer, first paragraph).
As a matter of fact, however, claim 1 requires depositing a
cerium-oxide-precursor compound and then heating the compound to
form cerium-oxide with cerium in the +4 oxidation state. This
method is neither taught nor suggested by Subramanian, and this
deficiency is not remedied by the disclosure of Ueda. While
Ueda teaches forming cerium-oxide by calcining ammonium cerium
sulfate, Ueda is directed to an abrasive particle and would not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007