Appeal 2007-0074
Application 10/758,381
and an even greater number of combinations of the process parameters that
could be selected for control” (Br. 3, ¶ 4), and that they have “discovered
that some specific deposition process parameters are to be measured and
then used as the control parameters” (Br. 3, ¶ 5). In particular, the process
parameters measured and controlled by the present invention are the flow
rates of the fuel, oxidizer, and powder to the deposition gun and the coolant
flow. Appellants’ method measures these parameters and utilizes feedback
signals to control them.
Appealed claims 12-17 and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Knight. Claims 18 and
25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the stated combination of
references further in view of Nakagawa.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as her cogent
disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants. Accordingly, we will
adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of
record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Moore, like Appellants, discloses the use of a high-velocity fuel
deposition gun for forming a deposit on a deposition substrate (Moore 2,
cols. 1-2). The principal argument advanced by Appellants is that the
sensors referred to in the portion of Moore cited by the Examiner “are not
sensors of gas flows, powder flows, and/or coolant flows, the process
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007