Appeal 2007-4240
Application 10/663,949
be cost effectively deposited as the electrolyte by plasma spraying compared
to EVD as disclosed by Ramanarayanan, and that plasma spraying of metals
was known as Appellants acknowledge. Cf., e.g., In re Graves, 69 F.3d
1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and cases cited therein (a reference anticipates
the claimed method if the step that is not disclosed therein is within the
knowledge of the skilled artisan). Indeed, the Examiner adduces no
reference establishing that plasma spraying a mixture of metal-ceramic
powders can provide Ramanarayanan’s Ni-YSZ skeletal structure, and mere
cost-benefit analysis alone does not established that this structure would be
formed in this manner.
We determine the ground of rejection over Cable is not supported by
evidence establishing obviousness in the same respects. See Br., e.g., 10;
Reply Br., e.g., 5. Indeed, the Examiner admits Cable does not explicitly
teach plasma spraying the actual furl electrode layer, and thus, this reference
alone provides no support for the Examiner’s contention that “it would be
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to recognize
plasma spraying as a viable option for applying the anode material” in
Cable. See Answer 6. Indeed, the Examiner’s contention that “Cable further
teaches applying a substantially furl electrode material (anode) to the
electrolyte using plasma spraying (8:30-35)” is not supported by that
disclosure. See Answer 16. In this respect, the “substantially anode
material” disclosed by Cable at col. 8, ll. 30-35, is nickel and nickel oxide,
and Cable at col. 10, ll. 18-21 (emphasis supplied), discloses that the anode “
is a porous body and may comprise a finely divided, compressed metallic
powder,” such as nickel blended with a stable oxide powder, such as zirconia
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013