Appeal 2007-1177
Application 10/733,740
not necessary for a finding of obviousness that all the compositions
disclosed by Longo ‘184 meet the claimed requirements.
Turning to the § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 13 over Longo ‘343 in
view of Nagaraj, the issues briefed by Appellants and the Examiner are
essentially the same as those discussed above. As for Appellants’ argument
that “dependent claim 23 recites that the thermal barrier coating is porous”
(principal Br. 10, fourth para.), the Examiner notes that claim 23 is not
rejected over Longo ‘343.
We further note that Appellants do not present additional substantive
arguments for the separate § 103 rejections of claims 14, 15, 17 and 19, or
claims 16, 20 and 21.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
clj
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013