Appeal 2006-3437
Application 10/702,801
ceramic-containing bonding element between the coating and the article
surface. The transfer support may be the removable deposition substrate,
such as polyvinyl alcohol, or the transfer support may be an intermediate
support which removes the optical coating from the deposition substrate and
transfers it to the article surface. The metallic article that receives the
optical coating may be a component of a gas turbine engine.
Appealed claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-20 stand provisionally rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims of co-pending application 10/681,676 in view of
Hastings. The appealed claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as follows:
(a) claims 1, 4-12, and 20 over Ross in view of Hastings,
(b) claim 2 over Ross in view of Hastings and Connolly,
(c) claim 3 over Ross in view of Hastings and Ducane,
(d) claims 13, 16-18, and 20 over Ross in view of Hastings and
Hankland,
(e) claims 14 and 15 over Ross in view of Hastings and Oliva,
and
(f) claim 19 over Ross in view of Hastings and Alexander.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103, as well as the doctrine of double
patenting, in view of the applied prior art and co-pending application.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007