Appeal 2007-1177
Application 10/733,740
would also at least partially melt titanium oxide and cerium oxide particles.
While the Examiner recognizes that Longo ‘184 does not disclose applying
the thermal barrier coating to repair a component while it is in the machine,
we fully concur with the Examiner that Nagaraj evidences the obviousness
of doing so. Nagaraj teaches that it was known in the art to repair a zirconia-
based thermal barrier coating while the damaged component is in the
machine.
Appellants contend that Longo ‘184 discloses that the inventive
ceramic powder may comprise one or more of a laundry list of constituents,
“some of which meet Applicants’ first constituent claim limitation and some
which meet Applicants’ second constituent claim limitation” (Br. 8,
penultimate para.). However, as explained by the Examiner, Longo ‘184
exemplifies and claims powder compositions comprising zirconium oxide
and expressly discloses that the second material of the mixture can be
Appellants’ cerium oxide and titanium oxide. Accordingly, we concur with
the Examiner that Longo ‘184 establishes the obviousness of utilizing a
powder mixture comprising zirconia and Appellants’ ceramic material.
Also, we concur with the Examiner that Appellants have provided no factual
basis for their argument that selecting the claimed second constituent which
at least partially melts when applied “would not provide the relatively high
temperature resistance that Longo ‘184 seeks” (principal Br. 9, first para.).
This argument is rebutted by the specific reference disclosure of ceramic
materials used by Appellants, namely, cerium oxide and titanium oxide. It is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013