User:Mzahm: Difference between revisions

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older edit
Mzahm (talk | contribs)
82 edits
Mzahm (talk | contribs)
82 edits
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== '''Patent 4788402: HIGH POWER EXTENDED ARC PLASMA SPRAY METHOD AND APPARATUS''' ==
== '''Case Summaries''' ==


'''Patent Date: November 29, 1988'''
[[Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (1989)]]


'''Inventor: James A. Browning'''
[[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)]]


[[File:Fig2.jpg]]
[[A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (1950)]]


Figure 2a shows a longitudinal view of the apparatus, while Figure 2b shows a cross-sectional view taken about the line 2b-2b.  
[[Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (1955)]]


== '''Homework Assignments'''==


[[Homework 1: 1980-1990 Patent]]


''Basic Description:''
[[Homework 2: Non-obviousness]]


This apparatus is used to apply metal or ceramic coatings to surfaces. The device functions as follows:
[[Homework 3: Non-obviousness Arguments]]


An electric arc is created [37], emanating from the cathode electrode [32]. Gas is pumped from the gas supply tube [26] into the annular chamber [41], surrounding the cathode electrode [32] and flowing out of the exit nozzle [34 & 34a]. The conical reduction section [35] helps to create a vortex flow for the gas, giving it a higher velocity as it exits the nozzle [34a]. The interaction between the gas and the arc ionizes the gas, creating the plasma, and this plasma atomizes the powder entering the nozzle [27 & 27'] and deposits it on the surface of the workpiece via the plasma flame jet [38], creating the surface coating.
[[Homework 4: Non-obvious Page Edit]]


This device is largely an innovation on existing technology, based largely on the increased velocity and voltage.
[[Homework 23: Printed Publication Case Summary]]
This device can also create coatings using wire or thin, flat strips instead of powder, owing to the increase in velocity that allows for the atomization of these materials.
 
[[Homework 26: Case on Doctrine of Equivalence]]
 
[[Homework 27: Argument for Hamilton Sundstrand]]
 
[[Homework 31: Quanta Brief]]

Latest revision as of 00:27, 29 April 2011

Case Summaries

Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft (1989)

Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)

A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (1950)

Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (1955)

Homework Assignments

Homework 1: 1980-1990 Patent

Homework 2: Non-obviousness

Homework 3: Non-obviousness Arguments

Homework 4: Non-obvious Page Edit

Homework 23: Printed Publication Case Summary

Homework 26: Case on Doctrine of Equivalence

Homework 27: Argument for Hamilton Sundstrand

Homework 31: Quanta Brief

Retrieved from "https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Mzahm&oldid=4899"