Appeal 2007-0882
Application 10/702,987
Examiner has failed to identify a teaching, motivation, or suggestion in
White, alone or in combination with Bajan, of all the recited claim elements.
The issue before us is: Has the Examiner properly established a prima facie
case of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C § 103(a)?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm as to both grounds of rejection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) White discloses “methods for repairing surface cracks in structural
alloy parts, such as engines, by cleaning, coating, and hot isostatic
pressing the part to provide a leak-free repaired area, while maintaining
the crystalline structure and mechanical properties of the alloy part.”
Col. 1, ll. 8-13. White discloses that the method may be used to repair
cracks in articles such as turbine blades and turbine shrouds. Col. 2,
l. 63 - col. 3, l. 1. “The article may have internal passageways
communicating through the end of the article.” Col. 3, ll. 2-3.
2) White teaches that “[t]he superalloy may have a superalloy
composition of a nickel-base, iron-base, or cobalt-base superalloy, such
as is well known and described, for example, in Metals Handbook Tenth
Edition, Vol. 1, Properties Selection: Iron, Steel and High-Performance
Alloys, ASM International (1990), pages 981-994 and 995-1006, which
describes many castable superalloys, and specifically nickel-base
superalloys that may be directionally solidified or formed as single
crystals.” White, col. 4, ll. 22-30.
3) According to White, “[d]uring manufacturing or service life, many
directionally solidified superalloy parts, such as blades 1, experience
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013