Appeal 2007-0164
Application 10/286,122
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 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that:
Mehta et al[.] teach repair of metallic portions of metal
articles by a laser cladding process that concurrently applies a
powder metal and the laser beam to the surface to be repaired,
that was damaged during manufacture, thermal cycling, wear,
etc., noting that alternative conventional localized repair means,
such as electron beam welding or arc welding, adversely affect
properties of materials of construction due to relatively high
heat input that results in distortion in affected zones (col. 1,
especially ll. 21-31).
Answer 3, last paragraph. As pointed out by the Examiner, Mehta expressly
teaches that the disclosed process can be used to repair “aircraft gas turbine
engine components” that are damaged “from manufacturing error as well as
from operational thermal cycling, wear, part interference, etc.” (col. 2,
ll. 41-43). In addition, Mehta teaches that “[a]lthough such damage can
occur to stationary as well as rotating parts, damage is particularly critical in
the rotating components because of the stresses generated in operation,
during rotation (col. 2, ll. 46-50, emphasis added).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013