Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836
electric arc spraying for depositing the anchor layer, including a
typical cost/benefit analysis. Also, from a somewhat different
perspective, as already discussed above and in our decision in the co-
pending application, we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the
teachings of Gorynin and Rondeau, to use an alloy comprising
aluminum and nickel for the anchor layer in Ishida.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results. Indeed, Appellants' Specification attributes no particular
criticality to the selection of an alloy of aluminum and nickel for the
anchor layer (see page 5, ll. 11-18).
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)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013