Appeal Number: 2006-0866
Application Number: 10/086,148
step”). The appellants further contend that claims 2 to 26 would not have been
obvious in view of the teachings of Nagaraj and Skelly. Specifically appellants
contend that there is no motivation to combine the teaching of Nagaraj and Skelly.
The examiner contends that Nagaraj does disclose the bond texturizing step.
Further, examiner contends that Skelly discloses the bond texturizing step and that
there would have been motivation to modify the method disclosed in Nagaraj so as
to include the bond textuizing step.
ISSUES
Does Nagaraj describe a method for repairing a damaged surface layer of a
turbine component surface which includes the step of texturizing the surface to
produce a textured surface having an array of spaced grooves of predetermined
groove spacing, predetermined grove geometry and predetermined wall angle?
Would there have been motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the teachings of Nagaraj and Skelly so as to arrive at the claimed
invention?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Nagaraj teaches that in order to be effective, a thermal barrier coatings must
adhere strongly to the component coated (col. 1, lines 29 to 33). The challenge in
forming these thermal barrier coatings is to form a coating that is less susceptible
to spalling (col. 1, lines 55 to 58). In order to achieve this purpose, thermal barrier
coatings include a bond layer between the component to be coated and the
overlying ceramic layer (col. 1, lines 40). The Nagaraj method is directed to a
method of repairing a thermal barrier coating after the bond coat has spalled and
includes the steps of texturizing the portion of the bond surface which has spalled
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013