Appeal 2007-0950
Application 11/099,264
the references expressly discloses asymmetric dialkyl moieties is not
controlling; the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what the
references expressly teach, but what they would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made.”).
With respect to the second ground of rejection, Strutt would have
suggested injecting two streams of suspensions or slurries of nanoparticles,
and teaches the reprocessed powder mixtures can be conventionally spray
deposited and the suspension or slurry of as-synthesized powders can be
injected into plasma. Gambino establishes that a gas fluidized powder can
be injected by spraying means adjacent the flame torch in the thermal spray
gun, and thus, into the torch flame, and that a suspension of particles can be
injected via an atomizing system situated outside of the thermal spray gun.
Thus, Gambino’s thermal spray gun accommodating these two streams
provides for the separate injection of liquid/solid particle mixtures and of
solid particles as specified in the methods encompassed by claims 12 and 14,
and reasonably appears capable of applying a thermal barrier layer as
specified for the devices encompassed by claim 20. With respect to claim
17, Strutt teaches that conventionally applied powder mixtures have a much
larger particles size than the nanoparticles injected via a suspension or slurry
as does Gambino. Indeed, both Strutt and Gambino disclose the same
particle size range for nanoparticles as claimed, and Gambino’s particle size
range for conventional powder mixture overlaps Strutt’s range and the
claimed range.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in
this art routinely following the combined teachings of Strutt, Peterson, and
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013