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