Appeal 2007-0950
Application 11/099,264
by thermal spraying, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to
such reference with respect to such reference to apply thermal barrier
coating constituents to obtain a high temperature coating (Br. 8). With
respect to claim 12, Appellants specify “further comprising the step of
separately injecting particulate thermal barrier coating constituents into the
plasma jet of the plasma spray device,” and contend “Gambino illustrates
that the composite particles are already in the plasma flame when it emerges
from the gun” and does not teach this limitation (id. 9, citing Gambino Figs.
1 and 5). Appellants contend that the disclosure of Gambino’s Fig. 5 relied
on to support a second injector does not do so because “[a]s understood,”
such disclosure shows “only a single injector positioned to inject a
suspension of gas fluidized magnetic particles into the plasma flame to
supplement the composite particles already exiting the plasma torch 10” (id.
9). Appellants further contend, in this respect, that Gambino’s “Figure 1
fails to show any injector configured to inject a material into the plasma jet,
while Figure 5 shows only a single injector,” in arguing that the reference
does not show a plasma gun and both a liquid injector and a powder injector
as specified for the apparatus encompassed by claim 20 (id. 11). With
respect to claim 17, Appellants contend one of ordinary skill in the art would
not be motivated to combine Gambino’s teachings of magnetic particles
having a particle size of 20-200 microns with Strutt’s teachings of a particle
size range of 10 to 50 microns (id.).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in each of the
grounds of rejection advanced on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013