Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836
in intermediate catalyst layers, we agree with the Examiner that these
properties of the alloy are not contingent upon their use.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
Donomoto, Draghi and Gorynin apply the aluminum/nickel alloy by
plasma spraying rather than the claimed electric arc spraying.
Appellants submit that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined the teachings of these references with Ishida because that
"would destroy the desired feature of improving adhesion between the
plasma-sprayed layer and a catalyst formed thereon" (page 11 of
Brief, penultimate sentence). However, the modification proposed by
the Examiner is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ the electric arc spraying of Ishida for
depositing an anchor layer comprising aluminum and nickel.
Finally, regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7
over Gorynin in view of Rondeau and Ishida, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection for the reasons set forth in our decision in
Appellants' co-pending application, U.S. Serial No. 10/376,782, filed
February 28, 2003 (Appeal No. 2007-1018). Suffice it to say that we
agree with the Examiner that, based on the collective teachings of
Gorynin, Rondeau, and Ishida, it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the aluminum/nickel-containing
anchor layer of Gorynin by electric arc spraying as taught by Rondeau
and Ishida. As set forth at pages 8-10 of the Answer, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that a certain balance must be
effected in the determination of selecting either plasma spraying or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013