Appeal 2007-0950
Application 11/099,264
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) advanced on appeal (Br. 3):1
Claims 1 through 7, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Strutt in view of
Peterson (Answer 3-6); and
Claims 8, 9, and 12 through 20 as unpatentable over Strutt in view of
Peterson as applied and further in view of Gambino (id. 6-8
Appellants argue the claims in the first ground of rejection as a group,
argue the claims in the second ground of rejection as a group, and further
argue only claims 12 and 13, claim 17, and claim 20 with specificity (Br. 5
and 8-11). Thus, we decide this appeal based on independent claims 1 and
14 as representative of the respective grounds of rejection and further on
claim 12, dependent on claim 1, claim 17, dependent on claim 14, and
independent claim 20 to the extent argued. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006).
With respect to the first ground of rejection, the Examiner finds Strutt
teaches, among other things, a suspension of solid thermal barrier coating
constituent particles and a carrier liquid which can be injected into a plasma
of a plasma spray gun to deposit a coating in the form of a gradient film
(Answer 4, citing Strutt, e.g., col. 3, l. 65, to col. 4, l. 5). The Examiner
finds “Strutt teaches all the features of these claims except that the
suspension is specifically injected into the plasma jet of the plasma spray
device” (id. 5). The Examiner contends the disclosure at column 7,
ll. 48-55, of Strutt is merely exemplary and does not limit the teachings at
columns 3-4 (id. 13 and 14-15). The Examiner finds Peterson teaches,
1 The Examiner did not advance the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, and states the rejection is withdrawn (Answer 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013