Appeal 2007-0950
Application 11/099,264
particles in liquid suspension and not in liquid suspension into the plasma
spray jet as suggested by Gambino and to use an appropriate particle (id. 8).
With respect to the first ground of rejection, Appellants contend the
claim limitation “injecting the suspension into a plasma jet of a plasma spray
device” is not taught by Strutt and Peterson (Br. 5). Appellants contend
Strutt, at column 7, lines 50-55, as relied on by the Examiner, teaches
introducing a suspension as an aerosol into the gas feed of a plasma gun and
thus prior to forming the plasma jet exiting the gun (id.). Appellants contend
Peterson teaches conventional introduction of powder particles fluidized
with feed gas into a plasma jet, but not a suspension of particles in a liquid
carrier (id., citing Peterson col. 4, ll. 3-5). Appellants contend Peterson does
not disclose that the term “fluidize” connotes “particles entrained in a liquid”
but rather uses the term in its common meaning of particles suspended in a
gas (Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend Strutt as relied on teaches away from
the combination with Peterson because of the introduction of the suspension
into the gas feed, as contrasted with Strutt’s “other embodiments which
describe introduction points for materials that are not discussed with respect
to the second embodiment” relied on (Br. 5-6). Appellants contend Peterson
teaches conventional introduction of particles fluidized in feed gas, and not
in a liquid, into the flame of a plasma spray gun, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand the injection locations are limited to those
disclosed (id. 6-7). Appellants thus contend impermissible hindsight was
used to arrive at the claimed invention by combining these references (id. 7).
With respect to the second ground of rejection, Appellants contend
Gambino is non-analogous art as it is directed to producing flexible magnets
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013