Appeal 2007-0687
Application 10/797,422
1 We decline the Appellants’ invitation. One of ordinary skill in the art
2 is presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references expressly
3 disclose. Spence discloses that the alumina/silica sol may be deposited on a
4 substrate by infiltration, spray, brush application, dipping, and immersion-
5 evaporation techniques.. Spence, col. 10, ll. 42-44. Substrates include
6 various ceramics. Spence, col. 4, ll. 40-42. Spence also discloses that care
7 must be taken in the coating procedure to assure complete coverage of the
8 substrate. Spence, col. 10, ll. 18-19.
9 We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
10 that the length of time a substrate, such as ceramic, is treated with the
11 alumina/silica sol disclosed in Spence depends on a number of factors,
12 including the porosity of the layer treated and the manner in which the
13 alumina/silica sol is deposited. See Specification, p. 13, ll. 1-6 (time
14 required for sufficient infiltration depends on a variety of factors well known
15 to those skilled in the art). We further find that optimal treatment times
16 could be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine
17 experimentation.
18 For these reasons, it is reasonable to conclude that the time periods
19 recited in claims 29 and 30 do not impart patentability to the claimed
20 process.
21 3. Claims 32-35 and 372
22 The method of claim 32 requires that a “turbine component is in an
23 assembled state” when the porous outer layer on the turbine component is
24 treated with the liquid composition comprising an alumina precursor.
2 The Appellants argue claims 32-35 and 37 as a group.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013