Appeal 2007-0950
Application 11/099,264
We find Gambino would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this
art a thermal spray arrangement illustrated in Fig. 1 in which thermal spray
gun 10 includes heating means having a flame torch, wherein the flame torch
is positioned adjacent the outlet of spraying means, the latter including a
nozzle through which a composite mixture of magnetic particles and a
fluidizing gas is pumped (Gambino, e.g., ¶¶ 0006, 0009, 0025 and 0028).
Gambino further discloses a thermal spray arrangement illustrated in Fig. 5
in which thermal spray gun 10 includes suspension atomizing system that
provides second spray stream 150 by pumping a liquid mixture of fluid and
magnetic particles via atomizing probe 140 which combines the liquid
mixture with atomizing gas 130, and the outlet of atomizing probe 140 is
situated outside of and near the outlet of thermal spray gun 10 (id., e.g.,
¶¶ 0006, 0013, 0014, and 0043-0045). The composite particles of magnetic
particles and matrix particles can have an average particle size of about 20 to
about 200 microns, and the magnetic particles can have a particle size of
about 1 to about 10 microns (id., e.g., ¶¶ 0030 and 0032).
Appellants acknowledge conventional processes use “[s]tandard
plasma spray technology primarily uses powder feeders to deliver powdered
coating material into a plasma jet of a plasma spray gun” (Specification, e.g.,
0003 and 0019).
We determine the combined teachings of Strutt and Peterson and
further with Gambino, the scope of which we determined above, provide
convincing evidence supporting the Examiner’s case that the claimed
invention encompassed by claims 1, 12, 14, 17, and 20, as we interpreted
these claims above, would have been prima facie obviousness of to one of
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013