Appeal 2007-0164
Application 10/286,122
Moreover, we fully concur with the Examiner’s reasoning that the cleaning
of substrates before coating procedures was such an old and well-known
practice in the coating art that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have
expected it to be the exception not to clean off the damaged area and remove
damage [sic, damaged] material before applying repair coatings” (Answer 9,
second paragraph). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
“because removing of material is an expensive process step, what would be
‘common sense’ is to try to accomplish repair without a separate removal
step” (principal Br. 8-9). Certainly, while it may be obvious to try to avoid
the expensive preparation step, we find no basis for concluding that it would
have been unobvious to make the necessary investment in the preparation
step to effect optimum quality.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, we agree with the Examiner that Islam
and Jones establish the obviousness of utilizing either powder or wire
sources for the coating material. Concerning claims 8 and 16, we also
concur with the Examiner that Dimitrienko establishes the obviousness of
depositing the powder source before laser treatment.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013