Appeal 2007-0687
Application 10/797,422
1 The Appellants argue that Spence does not teach or suggest that the
2 alumina/silica sol-gel infiltrates a porous outer layer of a thermal barrier
3 coating as in the claimed method. Br. 4. The Appellants also argue that
4 Hasz does not teach or suggest infiltrating the porous outer layer of a
5 thermal barrier coating with an alumina precursor according to the claimed
6 method. Br. 8-9.
7 The Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. First, the individual
8 teachings of Spence and Hasz cannot be attacked in a rejection based on
9 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rather, the combined teachings of Spence and Hasz must
10 be evaluated from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.
11 Hasz discloses that the impermeable aluminum oxide (alumina)
12 coating prevents infiltration or viscous flow of liquid contaminants into the
13 cracks, openings, and pores of the thermal barrier coating. Hasz, col. 2, ll.
14 45-63. Based on this disclosure, we find that the thermal barrier coating in
15 Hasz has a degree of porosity.
16 The Examiner found that the coating composition in Spence may be
17 deposited on a substrate as an alumina/silica precursor in a liquid phase and
18 converted in situ to an alumina/silica coating. Answer 4, 10. The
19 Appellants do not dispute this finding.
20 We find that the liquid coating composition in Spence will necessarily
21 infiltrate cracks, openings, and pores, such as the “cracks, openings, and
22 pores” of the thermal barrier coating disclosed in Hasz. Significantly, the
23 Appellants have failed to direct us to any evidence establishing otherwise.
24 Instead, the Appellants ask us to ignore the Examiner’s finding that the
25 thermal barrier coating in Hasz is porous because the finding is not
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013