Ex Parte Fusaro et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 13, 2008

10409523 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 13, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT ANTHONY FUSARO, JR., and
TIMOTHY FRANCIS BETHEL
____________

Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,5231
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: November 13, 2008
____________

Before THOMAS A. WALTZ, MARK NAGUMO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application 10/409,523, Method for Masking Selected Regions of a
Substrate, filed 8 April 2003 and claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120
of an application filed 11 January 2002. The specification is referred to as
the “523 Specification,” and is cited as “Spec.” The real party in interest is
listed as General Electric Company (Appeal Brief Pursuant to
37 C.F.R. §§ 41.31 and 41.37, filed 31 October 2007 (“Br.”), 2.)

Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

A. Introduction
Robert Anthony Fusaro, Jr., and Timothy Francis Bethel (“Fusaro”)
timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection2 of
claims 23-28, 32-34, and 39-49. Claims 29-31 have been indicated to be
allowable (FR 22), and claims 36-38 have been objected to as depending
from rejected claims but allowable if rewritten in independent form (FR 23).
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to coating and masking
techniques that are said to yield clean interfaces between coated and
uncoated regions. Although none of the claims are so limited, the example
and the primary interest concern the application of Thermal Bond Coats
(“TBC”) to superalloy substrates that are components of turbine engines.
According to the 523 Specification, it is imperative that certain surfaces,
such as welding flanges, not be coated. The claimed invention is intended to
cover methods of coating that are efficient and readily implemented on
shaped articles.
Representative Claims 45 and 23 are reproduced from the Claims
Appendix to the Principal Brief on Appeal:
Claim 45
A method, comprising:
physically defining a zone of non-adherence on a substrate,
wherein the zone of non-adherence is different than a
coating area and a non-coating area;
applying a first coating on the coating area but not on the zone
of non-adherence; and

2 Office Action mailed 8 June 2007 (“FR”).
2
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

applying a second coating on both the coating area and the zone
of non-adherence,
wherein the second coating adheres to the coating area
but does not adhere to the zone of non-adherence.
(Claims App., Br. 34; indentation and paragraphing added.)
Claim 23:
A method for providing a clean edge
at the interface of a portion of a substrate coated with a
coating system, and an adjacent portion of the substrate
which is uncoated,
wherein the portion of the substrate which is uncoated
comprises a zone of non-adherence,
wherein the coating system comprises two coatings,
said method comprising
forming the zone of non-adherence on the substrate
between the portion of the substrate to be coated and the
rest of the portion of the substrate which is to be
uncoated, prior to application of the coating system,
wherein the zone of non-adherence is adjacent the
interface so that the coating system will not adhere
to the zone of non-adherence, but will adhere to
the portion of the substrate which is to be coated
with the coating system, and
applying the at least two coatings to coat the portion of
the substrate to be coated
such that the zone of non-adherence is exposed to
at least one but fewer than all of the at least two
coatings,
such that the exposed coating directly contacts the
substrate in the zone of non-adherence but does not
adhere, and
wherein the zone of non-adherence is not exposed
to a first of the at least two coatings.
(Claims App., Br. 32; indentation and paragraphing added.)
3
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

The Examiner has maintained the following grounds of rejection:3
A. Claims 40, 41, and 43-49 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(1), as lacking an adequate written description
of the subject matter now claimed.
B. Claims 39, 40, and 42-49 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(2).
C Claims 23, 24, 27, 32, 40, 42, 43, and 45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of McGraw.4
D. Claims 23, 24, 27, 32, 40, 42, 43, and 45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of McGraw.
E. Claims 23, 24, 27, 32-34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, and 46 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined
teachings of Fry5 and Lindsay.6
F. Claims 41, 44, 47, and 48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Fry,
Lindsay, and Nishioka.7
G. Claims 23-28, 32-34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, and 46 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Honey, 8 Fry, Lindsay, and the admitted state of the prior art.
H. Claims 41, 44, 47, and 48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Honey, Fry, Lindsay, Nishioka, and the admitted state of the
prior art.

3 Examiner’s Answer mailed 7 January 2008 (“Ans.”).
4 Mary Jo McGraw, Making Greeting Cards with Rubber Stamps (1997).
5 James L. Fry et al., Electroless Plating of a Metal Layer on an Activated
Substrate, United States Patent 5,925,415 (1999)
6 James H. Lindsay, Evaporator Core Having Biocidal Fixture, United
States Patent 5,042,575 (1991).
7 Asaaki Nishioka and Kiyoshi Watanabe, Method of Plating Hydraulically
Hardened Material, JP 61-210,181 (1986) (USPTO translation into English).
8 Francis John Honey et al., Overlay Coating, EP 0,288,156 A1 (1988).
4
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

B. Issue
The dispositive issue in this case centers on the scope of the claimed
subject matter, in particular, on the interpretation of the terms “coating
area,” “zone of non-adherence,” and “non-coating area.”
C. Findings of Fact
Findings of fact ("FF") throughout this Decision are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
1. According to the 523 Specification, the discovered method provides
“a clean edge at the interface of a portion of a substrate coated with a coating
system and an adjacent portion of the substrate which is uncoated.”
(Spec. 4:[0014].)
2. The method is said to include “the step of forming a zone of non-
adherence (as described below) on the substrate portion which is to be
uncoated, prior to application of the coating system.” (Spec. 4:[0014].)
3. The 523 Specification continues, “[t]he zone of non-adherence is
adjacent the interface so that the coating system will not adhere to the zone
of non-adherence but will adhere to the adjacent portion of the substrate
which is to be coated with the coating system.” (Spec. 4:[0014].)
4. According to the 523 Specification, various techniques are known for
achieving a clean edge between coated and uncoated sections of a substrate,
including taping and masking, separately or together. (Spec. 2:[0007].)
5. Additionally, other techniques, including chemical masking, “in
which a non-bonding coating (e.g., an ‘anti-bond’ material) is sprayed or
painted on selected portions of the substrate. These types of non-bonding
5
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

materials prevent the protective coatings from permanently adhering to the
substrate.” (Spec. 3:[0011].)
6. The 523 Specification provides an example based on applying a
coating to a metallic substrate, such as a superalloy for a turbine engine.
(Spec. 7:[0036].)
7. When the substrate is a nickel superalloy, the first coating is said to be
usually a bond coat for a thermal barrier coating, which is said to have the
composition MCrAl(X). (Spec. 11:[0053].)
8. For turbine engine articles, the second coat is said to be usually a
ceramic coating, particularly a zirconia-based coating that may be blended
with certain oxides. (Spec. 12:[0056].)
D. Discussion
The burden is on Fusaro, as the Appellant, to prove reversible error by
the Examiner. Arguments not timely raised have been waived.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Written Description (New Matter)
The Federal Circuit has explained that a disclosure that satisfies the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(1) must meet a higher
standard than a disclosure that would suffice to render subject matter
obvious:
[o]ne shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by
describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not
that which makes it obvious. . . . the specification must contain
an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. . . . It is
not sufficient for purposes of the written description
6
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with
the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to
modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but
failed to disclose.
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(emphasis original, citations omitted). Whether the written description
requirement has been met is a question of fact, In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990,
996 (CCPA 1967), which is therefore decided according to the
preponderance of the evidence.
Claims 40, 43, and 45 (“physically defined”)
The Examiner finds that the requirement that the zone of non-
adherence be a ‘physically’ defined region, as recited in claims 40, 43,
and 45,9 all of which were added by amendment, is not adequately described
in the original specification. (Ans. 4.)
With regard to claims 40 and 43, we observe that corresponding
independent claims 23 and 32 require the step of “forming the zone of non-
adherence on the substrate . . . ". As the Examiner noted (Ans. 4), dependent
claims must further limit the parent claim.10 The step of forming the zone of
non-adherence on the substrate requires that the zone be a “physically
defined region” on the substrate. Since restating a limitation that is inherent

9 The claims dependent on claim 45 must also have this requirement.
10 35 U.S.C. § 112(4) reads in relevant part, “a claim in dependent form shall
contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further
limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be
construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to
which it refers.”
7
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

cannot introduce new matter to a claim, the rejection of claims 40 and 43 is
REVERSED.
Similarly, regarding claim 45, it is not clear how the step of
“physically defining a zone of non-adherence on a substrate” differs from
the step of “forming the zone of non-adherence on a substrate.” Put another
way, the Examiner has not shown how “physically defining a zone” on a
substrate is somehow either broader or narrower than “forming a zone” on a
substrate. In focusing on how many species of forming or physically
defining a zone are described in the specification, both the Examiner and
Fusaro appear to have overlooked the broad generic description in the
record. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 45 is REVERSED.
Claim 45 (“different”)
The Examiner finds that the recitation in claim 45 that the “zone of
non-adherence that is different than a coating area and a non-coating area” is
not adequately described in the original specification. (Ans. 5-6.) More
particularly, the Examiner finds no basis supporting a claim in which the
zone of non-adherence can be non-adjacent to the coated portion of the
substrate. (Id. at 6.)
In rebuttal, Fusaro cites several paragraphs of the specification and
asserts, without elaboration, that adequate support is provided. (Br. 9.) In
the Reply Brief, Fusaro quotes passages from some of the paragraphs cited,
and passages from additional paragraphs, and urges that “[t]he original
specification does not indicate that it is critical or essential to place the zone
of non-adherence adjacent the interface . . .” (Reply Br. 6.)
8
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

Fusaro’s arguments are not persuasive. Paragraph [0014] states that
“[t]he method includes forming a zone of non-adherence (as described
below)” and further that “[t]he zone of non-adherence is adjacent the
interface, so that the coating system will not adhere to the zone of non-
adherence, but will adhere to the adjacent portion of the substrate which is to
be coated with the coating system.” (Spec. 4:[0014].) Moreover, Fusaro
argued in the Reply Brief, quoted supra, “the ‘zone of non-adherence’ is a
non-roughened surface section 66, which is defined as the region between
the coating surface 52 and the sheet 62.” (Reply Br. 3.)
However, because paragraph [0014] of the 523 Specification, which
provides the most general description of the zone of non-adherence,
describes the zone of non-adherence as being adjacent to the coating
section—and because there appears to be no explanation of how such a zone
would be created, or would be useful, anywhere else—the absence of the
statement of adjacency in claim 45 and the dependent claims does not
broaden the scope of the claims. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is,
in this instance, fully described in the original specification, and the rejection
of claim 45 on this basis is REVERSED.
Claim 46 (“more adhesive”)
The Examiner finds that the recitation in claim 46, “making the
coating area more adhesive,” is not supported in the original specification by
paragraphs [0038]-[0040]. (Ans. 6.)
Appellants argue that the disclosure in paragraphs [0038]-[0040]
describe a specific example of a general adhesion promoting technique, and
that the rejection should therefore be reversed. (Br. 6; Reply Br. 6-7.)
9
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

Paragraph [0038] states that the purpose of protective tape 60 “is to
protect section 54 from the effects of an adhesion-promoting treatment,
which is to be used on section 52” Accordingly, it is clear that a genus of
adhesion-promoting treatments is described in the original specification, and
the rejection of claim 46 is REVERSED.
Claims 48 and 49 (comprises metal or ceramic material)
The Examiner finds that the recitations in claim 48, that the first
coating material “comprises” a metallic material, or that the second coating
“comprises a ceramic material, or a combination thereof,” and that the
recitation in claim 49 that the second coating “comprises” a zirconia-based
material” lack adequate descriptions in the originally filed specification.
According to the Examiner, the original specification describes the coatings
more narrowly, e.g., the first coating can be a bond coat, and that it can be an
MCrAl(X) material, and that the second coating can be a ceramic cover coat
that can be zirconia-based. The Examiner argues that the class of more
general coatings now recited are not described. (Ans. 6-7.)
Fusaro traverses, but does not raise any substantive arguments against
these rejections. (Br. 10.) In particular, Fusaro has not directed our
attention to a disclosure in the original specification that supports description
of a first coating material as “comprising” a metal, i.e., being made of a
metal and permitting the presence of other, unnamed ingredients of any
other composition. Nor has Fusaro directed our attention to any similar
disclosure regarding second coats and ceramics.
10
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

As Fusaro has not come forward with sufficient evidence to establish
reversible error on the part of the Examiner, we AFFIRM the rejection of
claims 48 and 49.
Claims 41, 44, and 47 (“spraying”)
The Examiner finds further that the limitation that the coating be
applied by “spraying,” recited in amended claims 41, 44, and 47, is not
adequately described in the original specification. (Ans. 4-5.) According to
the Examiner, only more specific forms of spraying (i.e., “thermal
spraying”) were described, and other possible spraying methods, such as
electrostatic spraying, powder spraying, and liquid spraying, were not
described. The Examiner concludes that an insufficient variety of species
has been disclosed to permit the generic term in the claims. (Id. at 5.)
Fusaro again directs our attention to numerous paragraphs in
the 523 Specification and asserts, without elaboration, that they support the
now-recited application of the coatings by generic “spraying.” (Br. 8-9.) In
the Reply Brief, Fusaro quotes in full, with emphasis, paragraphs [0042]-
[0044] and [0053] from the Specification, and urges that because “[c]learly,
the application of coatings is not limited to spraying techniques, much less
thermal spraying techniques,” the rejection should be reversed.
Fusaro’s objections are not on point. The issue is not whether Fusaro
described, in the originally filed specification, application techniques that are
broader than spraying, but whether the originally filed specification
describes the generic class of spraying techniques adequately that Fusaro
should be permitted to introduce a claim covering all modes of spraying, not
11
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

merely the classes of “thermal spraying” or “plasma spraying” recited in
the 523 Specification at page 11, paragraph [0053].
Again, the evidence advanced by Fusaro is insufficient to establish
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 41, 44, and 47 is AFFIRMED.
Indefiniteness
The Examiner has determined that the recitation in claims 39, 42,
and 45, that the zone of non-adherence is “different” than the coated and
uncoated portions of the substrate is unclear as to what must be different.
(Ans. 8.)
The Examiner has also determined that the recitation in claims 40, 43,
and 45 that the zone of non-adherence is a “physically defined” region is
unclear, especially as a further-limiting condition in claims 40 and 43.
The Examiner has further determined that the recitation in claim 44,
“applying the at least two coatings comprises spraying a coating,” and the
recitation in claims 47 and 48, applying first or second coatings by “spraying
a material” are also “confusing as worded.” (Ans. 9.)
We shall not affirm any of these rejections for indefiniteness, as the
“confusing” aspects of the claims as explained by the Examiner appear to be
reasonably resolved simply by giving the phrases their common meaning.
As Fusaro points out, it is hornbook patent law that breadth is not
indefiniteness.
Accordingly, the rejections for indefiniteness are REVERSED.
12
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

Prior Art Rejections C and D, based on McGraw
The Examiner finds that McGraw describes a process in which a first
coating (pigment ink) is applied to a substrate (notecard stock) in a first area;
then a second coating (embossing powder) is applied over an area that
encompasses the first area, but that is less than the entire notecard. (Ans. 10;
FR 10, citing McGraw .) The Examiner finds that the powder sticks to the
wet inked area, the excess powder is removed from the notecard. and the
remaining powder is fixed to the card by heating the powder until it melts.
(Id.) The Examiner identifies the area to which the ink pigment is applied as
the coated area; the area to which the embossing powder is applied that does
not have the ink pigment applied as the zone of non-adherence; and the area
of the notecard to which the embossing powder is not applied as the
uncoated area. (Id..) The Examiner finds that the zone of non-adherence is
adjacent the interface of the coating system and the area of the substrate that
is not coated. (Id.) Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the zone of non-
adherence is exposed to at least one (the powder) of the coatings, but fewer
than all of the coatings (the ink); and the exposed coating (the powder) does
not adhere to the zone of non-adherence. (Ans. 11; FR 10-11.) In particular,
the zone of non-adherence is not exposed to a first (the ink) of the at least
two coatings. (Ans. 11; FR 11.) The Examiner finds further that, “[a]s
shown on page 70 [of McGraw], the first stamped layers can also be formed
with a mask, that would also prevent exposure of the first layer of coating
from the stamp to the zone of non-adherence.” (Id.) (At page 70, McGraw
shows a method of printing wherein an inked rubber stamp is pressed onto a
substrate such that part of the inked image-transfer area of the stamp is
pressed onto an area of the substrate that is to be coated, which part of the
13
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

inked image-transfer area of the stamp is pressed onto an area of the
substrate that is masked.) With respect to claim 45, the Examiner makes
similar findings: “[t]he zone of non-adherence is different than a coating
area and a non-coating area . . . the non-coating area is the area of the
substrate where no embossing powder is applied.” (Id. at 12.)
Fusaro argues that McGraw does not anticipate independent
claims 23, 32, or 45 because McGraw “fails to teach or even suggest
formation of three regions or portions, which have a coated portion, a zone
of non-adherence, and an uncoated portion. . . . the McGraw reference
discloses only two regions, but nothing defined in between.” (Br. 16, 17,
and 18.) Fusaro founds its objections to the rejection for obviousness on the
same grounds. (Br. 24.)
On review of McGraw, especially Figure 2 at 90, McGraw shows a
drawing of a notecard that has been stamped with pigment ink, and powder
poured on top of the image. McGraw instructs, “Pour the powder over the
image. Be generous. It’s better to cover the image with a whole jar than to
sprinkle the powder and not get good coverage.” The image quality is not
excellent, but the drawing appears to show powder on all parts of the face of
the notecard, although most of the powder is piled on top of the printed
image. Accordingly, we shall not affirm the rejection for anticipation, as an
uncoated region of the notecard is not clearly shown.
However, Fusaro’s argument is not persuasive of error in the rejection
for obviousness. McGraw teaches that the embossing powder and notecard
stock should be selected so the powder does not cling to the paper, “because
once the powder is heated you can’t remove it.” (McGraw 89.) Thus, it
14
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
provide the three areas identified by the Examiner, namely the area coated
with the ink pigment, the area coated with the powder, and the peripheral
area of the card that is not coated with the powder, in order to provide the
best quality card image as well as to use the embossing powder with good
efficiency.
Fusaro has not explained why the Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
Moreover, Fusaro has not addressed the Examiner’s finding that the
placement of a mask on the notecard stock prior to the first step of applying
embossing ink to the notecard stock with the stamp that partially obscures a
portion of the inked stamp from the surface of the notecard stock, thereby
forming a zone of non-adherence between the area to be coated and the area
to be uncoated at the edge of the notecard.
Fusaro’s additional argument that there is no motivation to modify
McGraw to form the three recited regions (Br. 24) is without merit because
there is no need to modify McGraw, as the claimed process is broad enough
to read on embodiments obvious in view of McGraw. Fusaro’s argument
that McGraw teaches a different intended purpose and principle of operation
(Br. 25) fails because the claimed process does not exclude the embodiments
of the different purposes and principles of operation shown by McGraw.
The “zone of non-adherence” is formed, in the example provided in the
523 Specification, by a series of masking, treatment, and coating steps.
Similarly, McGraw teaches the formation of a zone of non-adherence by a
series of steps, including selective treatment and, in one embodiment, by a
masking step.
15
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

Accordingly, as Fusaro has not proved reversible error, the rejection
for obviousness in view of McGraw is AFFIRMED.
Prior Art Rejections E, F, G, and H
The Examiner finds that Fry teaches a two-coating system. (Ans. 14.)
The first coating is a layer of silyl hydride or monatomic metal that is
applied to the substrate in a desired pattern. (Id.) The second layer is metal
from the solution into which the substrate is dipped that reacts with the silyl
hydride to form a monatomic metal layer, or metal that electrolessly plates
onto the monatomic metal layer. (Id.) The Examiner notes that the
electroless plating only occurs on the patterned areas, so adjacent to the
pattern there is no deposition from solution. (Id.) The Examiner finds that
“[t]he portion of the substrate which is uncoated comprises a zone of non-
adherence (an area where coating is exposed but does not adhere)” (Id.)
The Examiner finds that Fry teaches all the limitations of the independent
claims “except that the zone of non-adherence is formed prior to coating and
is specifically a zone between the coating system and a separate non-coated
area of the substrate.” (Ans. 16.)
Similarly, the Examiner finds that Honey teaches methods of forming
an overlayer thermal barrier coating on a turbine substrate with a two-
coating system. (Ans. 19.) The first coating can be provided by electroless
coating of an M1CrAlM2 layer. (Id., citing Honey 1:25-40.) The second
coating is a thermally sprayed thermal barrier ceramic coating. (Id., citing
Honey 3:30-40.) The Examiner finds that Honey describes processes that
meet all the features of the independent claims “except the forming of the
zone of non-adherence and its application as part of the application process.”
16
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

(Ans. 19.) The Examiner argues that the electroless plating process taught
by Fry would be appropriate to use for plating the turbine parts as taught by
Honey. (Id.)
In each case, the Examiner finds that Lindsay provides the missing
limitations by teaching that, when performing electroless plating, it is known
to partially immerse a substrate into the solution in order to treat selected
areas of the substrate. (Ans. 16 and 20.) According to the Examiner, “[t]he
zone of non-adherence would be determined before coating by routine
experimentation as the location of the pattern to be coated would need to be
determined . . . .” (Ans. 17.)
Fusaro argues that “Fry teaches only a coated portion and an uncoated
portion without any mention of a portion in between (or different), much less
a zone of non-adherence between the coated and uncoated portions.”
(Br. 26.) Moreover, Fusaro argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Lindsay
is inadequate because “the mere partial emersion [sic: immersion] of a
substrate does not mean that a zone of non-adherence was formed on the
substrate.” (Br. 27.)
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Fusaro has
not explained why the Examiner’s identification of the dipped, non-
patterned region of the Fry substrate, which is determined by the necessary
“routine experimentation” noted by the Examiner, is incorrect. The coated
region is the region where metal is deposited. The uncoated region is the
region that is not dipped. In between the coated and the uncoated region is
the zone of non-adherence, which is exposed to the second coating solution,
but on which no metal coating occurs. This “zone of non-adherence” meets
17
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

the limitation that it be “physically defined” or “formed.” The broadest
reasonable meaning of this requirement is that the zone must be defined—
distinguished from the coated zone and from the non-coated zone—by some
physical action or process step. Here that step is partial submersion.
Attacking references individually, without explaining why the
combination of the teachings is inadequate or improper, is not a valid
rebuttal of a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Merck & Co., Inc. 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established
by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.”) (citation omitted).
Fusaro does not raise separate arguments against Rejections F, G,
and H. (Br. 28-29.) Accordingly, these Rejections stand or fall with
Rejection E, which is AFFIRMED.
E. Summary
In view of the record and the foregoing considerations, it is:
ORDERED that the rejection of Claims 40, 43, 45, and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(1), as lacking an adequate written description of the
subject matter now claimed is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of Claims 41, 44, and
47-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(1), as lacking an adequate written description
of the subject matter now claimed is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 39, 40,
and 42-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2) is REVERSED;
18
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 23, 24, 27,
32, 40, 42, 43, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of McGraw is
REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 23, 24, 27,
32, 40, 42, 43, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of McGraw is
AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 23, 24, 27,
32-34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
combined teachings of Fry and Lindsay is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 41, 44, 47,
and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Fry,
Lindsay, and Nishioka is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 23-28,
32-34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
combined teachings of Honey, Fry, Lindsay, and the admitted state of the
prior art is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 41, 44, 47,
and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined
teachings of Honey, Fry, Lindsay, Nishioka, and the admitted state of the
prior art is AFFIRMED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
19
Appeal 2008-4288
Application 10/409,523

tc

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289

20