Appeal 2007-0687
Application 10/797,422
1 Rigney et al. (“Rigney”) US 6,274,193 Aug, 4, 2001
2 4 Ceramics and Glasses 11, 752-53 (ASM International 1991) (“Ceramics
3 and Glasses”).
4
5 B. ISSUES
6 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
7 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17-25, 27-30, 32-35, and 37 under
8 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Spence
9 and Hasz?
10 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
11 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
12 being unpatentable over the combination of Spence, Hasz, and Ceramics and
13 Glasses?
14 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
15 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
16 being unpatentable over the combination of Rigney, Spence, and Hasz?
17 C. FINDINGS OF FACT
18 The following findings of fact are believed to be supported by a
19 preponderance of the evidence. Additional findings of fact as necessary
20 appear in the Analysis portion of the opinion.
21 According to the Appellants’ specification, the term “non-alumina
22 thermal barrier coating material” refers to those coating materials (other than
23 alumina) that are capable of reducing heat flow to the underlying metal
24 substrate of the article, i.e., forming a thermal barrier. Suitable non-alumina
25 ceramic thermal barrier coating materials include yttria-stabilized zirconias.
26 Specification, p. 5, l. 30 - p. 6, l. 11.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013