Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357
conventional deposition technique (Col. 3, lines 49-57)" (id.), the reference
does not specifically teach any of the presently claimed application
techniques. However, Klabunde teaches the method of forming a reflective
layer on a substrate by spraying a dispersion of metal particles, such as gold
or platinum, and a solvent carrier onto the substrate followed by firing (see
col. 3, lines 35-65 and col. 6, lines 30-54). Hence, based on the combined
teachings of Nagaraj and Klabunde alone, we find that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Appellants' air-assisted
spraying or airless spraying in the application of Nagaraj's heat-reflective
coating.
While the Examiner acknowledges that Klabunde does not teach an
air-assisted spraying technique, claim 1 on appeal does not require such
since airless spraying is also recited. In any event, Kirk-Othmer firmly
establishes the obviousness of employing air-assisted spraying as well in
Nagaraj/s application of the heat-reflective coating. Also, while Nagaraj
prefers applying the heat-reflective coating on a nickel-based superalloy, we
agree with the Examiner that Rigney evidences the obviousness of utilizing a
ceramic thermal barrier coating to insulate the substrate from high
temperature.
Appellants acknowledge that "Nagaraj teaches that his mixtures 'can
be readily deposited' (col. 3, line 60) and mentions 'conventional deposition
techniques' (col. 3, line 56)," but Appellants maintain that the reference "has
no teaching of a method for applying a reflective-coating mixture" (Br. 12,
last para.). However, Appellants fail to explain why any of the application
methods recited in claim 1 on appeal would not have been considered by one
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013