Appeal 2007-0882
Application 10/702,987
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365. Thus, the burden
was properly shifted to Appellants to provide evidence of unexpected results
with respect to the claimed ranges. Appellants have not met this burden.
Coating thickness of from about 0.030 to about 0.150 inches
(claims 12 and 19)
The Examiner concedes that the thickness of White’s coatings is less
than the thicknesses recited in claims 12 and 19. The Examiner relies on
Bajan for a teaching that it was known in the art, at the time of the invention,
to deposit coatings having the claimed thickness by the HVOF process on
turbine parts which are then subjected to isostatic pressing. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the White process to result in the
claimed coating thickness to achieve a desirable combination of properties,
such as both a desired finished dimension and diffusion bonding between the
coating material and the substrate following isostatic pressing, as taught by
Bajan. Answer 5.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is based on hindsight
reconstruction because Bajan relates to different types of coatings than those
claimed, and Bajan's method, unlike White’s method, requires initial
processing to a special surface morphology.
In an obviousness determination, the relevant inquiry is “what the
combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the
nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those
of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d
1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As noted by the Examiner, both White and
Bajan are directed to application of metallurgical coatings to gas turbine
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013