Appeal 2007-0687
Application 10/797,422
1 supported by an Examiner’s affidavit. The Examiner’s finding will not be
2 ignored because it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
3 For the reasons set forth above, it is reasonable to conclude that the
4 method of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the combined
5 teachings of Spence and Hasz.
6 2. Claims 29 and 30
7 According to the Appellants’ specification, the liquid composition
8 comprising the alumina precursor is applied to the porous outer layer of the
9 thermal barrier layer in a manner such that the alumina precursor infiltrates
10 the porous structure of the outer layer. The period of time required for
11 sufficient infiltration of the alumina precursor is said to depend on a variety
12 of factors, including factors well known to those skilled in the art.
13 Typically, the porous outer layer is treated with the liquid composition for a
14 period of time in the range from about 0.1 to about 30 minutes, more
15 typically from about 1 to about 5 minutes. See Specification, p. 12, l. 27-p.
16 13, l. 9. These treatment times are recited in claims 29 and 30.
17 The Examiner found that the length of treatment is a result effective
18 variable. The Examiner also found that the optimal treatment time could be
19 determined through routine experimentation. Answer 6-7.
20 The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s position is based on
21 “unsupportable and improper speculation” because Spence and Hasz do not
22 disclose treatment times. The Appellants ask us to give no weight to the
23 “unsupported speculation about the alleged ‘obviousness’ of the time periods
24 defined in Claims 29-30.” The Appellants do not argue that the claimed
25 treatment times are critical. Br. 10-11.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013