Appeal 2007-1852
Application 10/936,925
Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to establish a teaching,
suggestion, or motivation for modifying Seth’s MCrAlY cold spraying
process to include the abrasive oxides or abrasive carbides disclosed by
Benoit. (Br. 3).
Contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find that the facts and reasons
set forth by the Examiner provide a reasonable basis to conclude that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
references in the manner claimed. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10-13 and 15-18 for the reasons well-stated in the
Examiner’s Answer.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established where the Examiner
demonstrates that the invention is nothing more than the predictable result of
a combination of familiar elements according to known methods. See KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395
(2007). In this case, the Examiner found that both Benoit and Seth are
directed to methods of extending the life of blade tips by applying abrasive
layers to the blade tip surface. (See Findings of Fact 3-6 and 10-12). Both
Benoit and Seth disclose that known methods of applying the abrasive layers
include powder metallurgy techniques, plasma spray techniques, and
electroplating techniques. (Findings of Fact 3 and 10). Benoit teaches that
alumina and alumina-zirconia are suitable abrasives for use in these
conventional processes of applying abrasive layers. (Finding of Fact 16).
Seth discloses that a cold spraying process may be used to apply abrasive
layers and provides improved results over the afore-mentioned conventional
processes. (Finding of Fact 6). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013