Appeal 2007-0074
Application 10/758,381
monitor the coating process using the sensors, as preciously [sic, previously]
discussed, and either provide feedback to an operator who makes
adjustments or automatically adjust the operation to stay within selected
coating parameters in response to variations in temperature, fluctuations in
coating process parameters, the rate of coating deposition or any other
detectable variations in the coating process.”
Hence, based on the Moore disclosure alone, we are convinced that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the
claimed method of depositing a coating on a substrate using a high-velocity
oxyfuel deposition gun by monitoring the flow rates of fuel, oxidizer,
powder, and coolant, and using feedback control based on the monitored
measurements to control such rates. In our view, the Knight disclosure is
not necessary for arriving at the legal conclusion that the claimed method
would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, we fully concur with the Examiner that Knight further supports
the conclusion that the claimed flow rates are result effective variables in
coating methods using a high-velocity oxyfuel deposition gun, and that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine
through routine experimentation the optimum values for such rates. In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
We also reject Appellants’ argument that a parameter may be
controlled without being measured and using such measurement to control
the parameter. While certainly it is possible to control a flow rate without
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007