Appeal 2007-0882
Application 10/702,987
that White’s method is applicable to a stationary flowpath shroud given
White’s teaching that the invention is applicable to “articles such as turbine
shrouds.” See Finding of Fact 1.
Redrilling the cooling holes (claims 6, 8-11, 16 and 21)
Appellants argue that White’s disclosure of “surface finishing steps”
is not a teaching of a step of redrilling cooling holes. We again find
ourselves in agreement with the Examiner’s determination that one of
ordinary skill in the art would find this step readily apparent from White’s
disclosure. Answer 8. White contemplates the repair of articles having a
structure that commonly includes holes. Findings of Fact 1 and 3.
Moreover, White teaches that “material removal and surface finishing steps
such as machining, polishing or other material removal” may be required
after coating to produce a finished part.” Finding of Fact 6.
Heating the article to specific temperatures and/or times (claims 13-19)
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to vary
parameters such as time and temperature in White’s process to achieve the
desired amount of diffusion between layers. Answer 4. Appellants argue
that White fails to teach that heating temperature is a result effective
variable. Br. 12 & 13, Reply 16 & 17. We are in agreement with the
Examiner’s determination that the claimed processing times and
temperatures are prima facie obvious in view of White’s disclosure of
comparable operating parameters. See Findings of Fact 7 and 9. A prima
facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art and claimed ranges
overlap, as well as in those cases where the claimed range and the prior art
range, though not overlapping, are sufficiently close that one skilled in the
art would have expected them to have the same properties. See In re
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013