Ex Parte Skoog et al - Page 14

                Appeal 2007-0950                                                                                 
                Application 11/099,264                                                                           

                Gambino would have used Gambino’s spray gun with atomizing system to                             
                separately inject Strutt’s conventional thermal barrier powder mixture and                       
                suspension or slurry of nanoparticles in the reasonable expectation of                           
                forming a thermal barrier coating as taught by Strutt.  Thus, this person                        
                would have reasonably arrived at the claimed processes encompassed by                            
                claims 12, 14, and 17 and the claimed device encompassed by claim 20,                            
                including all of the limitations thereof arranged as required therein, without                   
                recourse to Appellants’ specification.  See, e.g., Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-88,                     
                78 USPQ2d at 1334-37; Dow Chem., 837 F.2d at 473, 5 USPQ2d at                                    
                1531-32; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881; see also O’Farrell,                           
                853 F.2d at 903-04, 7 USPQ2d at 1680-81.                                                         
                       We are not persuaded otherwise by Appellants’ contentions.  We                            
                determine that one of ordinary skill in this art would have considered                           
                Gambino because, as the Examiner points out, the reference is reasonably                         
                pertinent to the problem of plasma thermal spraying particles suspended in                       
                liquid which is addressed by Strutt, and thus, would have commended itself                       
                to this person’s attention in applying Strutt’s materials, even though it is in a                
                different field of endeavor.  Indeed, Appellants do not contend Gambino’s                        
                device is incapable of applying Strutt’s conventional powder mixture and                         
                liquid suspension of nanoparticles to a substrate to obtain a thermal barrier                    
                coating.  See, e.g., In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61                      
                (Fed. Cir. 1992). (“A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may                   
                be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which,                   
                because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended                        
                itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.”).  With respect                   


                                                       14                                                        

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013