Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357
of ordinary skill in the art as one of the conventional deposition technique
taught by Nagaraj.
We do not understand Appellants' argument that "Nagaraj does not
teach or suggest providing a reflective-coating" (Br. 13, second para.). The
reference expressly discloses that "the heat shield is formed as a reflective
coating 16 which forms a reflective surface 18 on the insert 10, as shown in
FIG. 1" (col. 3, lines 42-44). As for Appellants' argument that "the present
invention recites only applying a reflective coating mixture, not both a
reflective coating mixture and thermal barrier coating" (id.), the Examiner
properly notes that the "comprising" language of the appealed claims
embraces the application of both such coatings.
Appellants also maintain that the spraying techniques cited in Kirk-
Othmer "with respect to atomizers appears directed to the internal workings
of the gas turbine, i.e., the injection of fuel inside the engine for combustion,
not applying a coating to the surface of a gas turbine engine" (Br. 14, third
para.). However, we concur with the Examiner that Kirk-Othmer,
considered as a whole, "is directed to known and conventional spraying
techniques and discloses, on page 688 in Table 2, air-atomizing spray is a
known method of spraying coatings" (Answer 15, last para.). We note that
Appellants have apprised us of no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered it unobvious to apply a heat-reflective coating by one
of the known, claimed application techniques.
Appellants also state that they do not "know whether palladium,
platinum, and/or gold colloidal metal dispersions as taught by Klabunde will
yield a 'reflective-coating mixture' as claimed" (Br. 16, first para.).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013