Appeal 2007-0687
Application 10/797,422
1 on to establish that the claimed process and the process described in
2 Ceramics and Glasses prima facie produce the same product.
3 The Appellants do not disclose that other steps are necessary to
4 thermally convert aluminum alkoxide to finely divided alpha alumina.
5 Therefore, based on the record before us, we find that one of ordinary skill
6 in the art would have expected the thermally produced alpha alumina
7 described in Ceramics and Glasses to be finely divided.
8 5. Claims 32 and 38
9 Claim 38 reads as follows:
10 The method of claim 32 wherein step (1) comprises providing a
11 refurbished thermal barrier coating that overlays the metal
12 substrate of the turbine component.
13
14 The Examiner found that Rigney teaches repairing a damaged turbine
15 component by removing the entire thermal barrier coating, repairing the
16 metal component at the discrete location of the damage, and reapplying the
17 thermal barrier coating. Answer 8.
18 The Appellants argue that Rigney prefers to use metallic coatings for
19 the disclosed repair process. Therefore, the Appellants argue that there
20 would have been no motivation to use alumina in the repair process of
21 Rigney. Br. 15-16.
22 The Examiner merely relies on Rigney to establish that it was known
23 in the art to refurbish the ceramic thermal barrier coating of a turbine
24 component. Significantly, one cannot overcome a rejection based on a
25 combination of references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by attacking the
26 references individually.
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013