Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357
Consequently, we find no patentable distinction between the claimed
application of a reflective-coating mixture to the outer ceramic surface of an
engine component and Skoog's claim to applying the same reflective-coating
mixture to a ceramic barrier coating on the engine component. Manifestly,
Skoog's claimed engine component having a ceramic coating thereon meets
Appellants' claim requirement of a component of a gas turbine engine
having an outer ceramic surface. We totally reject Appellants' argument that
claim 7 of Skoog, which depends on claim 1, requires supplying a metallic
component rather than the presently claimed "supplying a component of a
gas turbine engine having an outer ceramic surface." We agree with the
Examiner that once the method of Skoog's claim 7 applies a ceramic coating
onto the engine component, an engine component having an outer ceramic
surface is supplied. Although Rigney provides additional evidence that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit the
heat-reflective coating of Skoog onto an outer ceramic surface of an engine
component, we hardly find Rigney necessary for supporting the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness.
We now turn to the § 103 rejections. Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner's factual determination that Nagaraj teaches a method of applying
a heat-reflective coating "on a nickel-based superalloy component of a gas
turbine engine by applying a ceramic thermal barrier coating onto the
substrate by plasma spraying and then applying the heat reflecting layer of
gold or platinum on the thermal barrier coating (Col. 3, line 26-Col. 4, line
24)" (Answer 6, last para.). As acknowledged by the Examiner, while
Nagaraj "teaches that the heat-reflecting layer can be applied by any
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013