Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357
reasonably specific to any particular claim. Accordingly, the claims subject
to these rejections stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner's
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his cogent and
thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants. Accordingly,
we will adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the
rejections of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the Examiner's double patenting rejections which
are based on the patent to Skoog’034. Skoog, like Appellants, claims a
method of applying a heat-rejection coating to the outer surface of a
component of a gas turbine engine wherein the heat-rejection coating
comprises a mixture of a metallic pigment and an evaporable carrier. Skoog
also claims applying the heat-rejection coating by one of the cited techniques
and firing the component of the engine after application of the reflective-
coating mixture. Appellants contend that Skoog "is directed to a method of
applying a heat rejection coating to a metallic component of a gas turbine
engine [whereas] [i]n contrast, the present invention is directed to applying
the heat rejection coating to a ceramic component" (Br. 7, second para.).
However, as pointed out by the Examiner, claim 7 of Skoog specifically
recites applying a ceramic barrier coating onto the component of the engine
"before the step of applying the reflective-coating mixture" and then
"applying the reflective-coating mixture after the ceramic barrier coating
applied to the component."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013