Ex Parte Bullied et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201613248338 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/248,338 09/29/2011 Steven J. Bullied 54549 7590 10/03/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. PA0017637-U; 67097-1567PU 7250 EXAMINER HA, STEVENS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN J. BULLIED, JOHN JOSEPH MARCIN, and CARL R. VERNER Appeal2015-005773 Application 13/248,33 8 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. uECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-8 and 21-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. According to the Appellants, "[ c ]asting is a known technique used to yield substantially net shaped components." Spec. i-f 2. Investment casting, for example, is said to involve "pouring molten metal into a ceramic shell having a cavity in the shape of a component to be cast." Spec. i-f 2. Another known casting technique is Appeal2015-005773 Application 13/248,338 said to be die casting. The Appellants disclose that "[ d]ie casting involves injecting molten metal directly into a reusable die to yield near net-shaped components." Spec. i-f 3. The Appellants disclose a method for die casting a hybrid component. The Appellants define "hybrid component" as including components that are made from more than one type of material. Spec. i-f 30. Examples of hybrid components include a turbine blade for a turbine section of a gas turbine engine. Spec. i-f 30. Independent claims 1, 31, and 3 2 are reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated November 10, 2014 ("App. Br."). The limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A method for die casting a hybrid component, comprising the steps of: defining a cavity within a die element of a die; inserting a spar into the cavity; injecting molten metal into the die element; solidifj;ing the molten metal within the cavity to form the hybrid component that is made from at least two different materials, wherein the spar establishes an internal structure of the hybrid component, and wherein the spar includes a high melting temperature material that defines a first melting temperature greater than a second melting temperature of the molten metal. App. Br. 9. 31. A method of manufacturing a hybrid gas turbine engine component, comprising: die casting the hybrid gas turbine engine component in a die casting process such that the hybrid gas turbine engine component includes an internal structure and an outer structure that surrounds the internal structure, the internal structure comprised of a different material from the outer structure. App. Br. 10. 2 Appeal2015-005773 Application 13/248,338 32. A method, comprising: defining a cavity within a die element of a die casting system that includes a die that defines the die element, a shot tube in fluid communication with the die element, and a shot tube plunger moveable within the shot tube; positioning a spar into the cavity; injecting molten metal into the die element using the die casting system; and solidifj;ing the molten metal within the cavity to form a hybrid component that is made from at least two different materials, wherein the spar establishes an internal structure of the hybrid component and is comprised of a different material than the molten metal. App. Br. 11. Independent claims 1, 31, and 32 stand rejected as follows: 1 (1) claims 1 and 31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Govern et al. 2 in view of Wang et al.; 3 and (2) claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Govern in view of Schirra et al. 4 and Wang. B. DISCUSSION 1. Claims 1 and 31 The Examiner finds Govern teaches a method for die casting a hybrid component comprising the steps of: (1) defining a cavity within a die element of a die; (2) inserting a spar (i.e., casting core 76) into the cavity; (3) injecting molten 1 The rejections of dependent claims 2-8 and 21-30 are set forth on pages 3-11 of the Final Office Action dated June 12, 2014 ("Final"). 2 US 7,322,396 B2, issued January 29, 2008 ("Govern"). 3 US 2005/0205232 Al, published September 22, 2005 ("Wang"). 4 US 2002/0005233 Al, published January 17, 2002 ("Schirra"). 3 Appeal2015-005773 Application 13/248,338 metal into the die element; 5 and (4) solidifying the molten metal within the cavity to form the hybrid component. Final 3. The Examiner finds "Govern is silent to the specific material of the spar (equated to the casting core 76)." Final 3. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds "Wang teaches that in a general manufacturing process for turbine blades, a ceramic core is assembled into a ceramic shell. Molten metal is poured into the shell to fill the void therein and again encapsulate the ceramic core contained in the shell." Final 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a ceramic core in the process of Govern based on the teachings of Wang. Final 4. The Appellants argue that Govern and Wang both "describe conventional investment casting operations that utilize ceramic core/shell casting molds,"6 not a die casting method as claimed. App. Br. 4. The Appellants also argue that Govern and Wang do not form a hybrid component made of at least two different materials as claimed. Rather, according to the Appellants, Govern casts a hollow airfoil 5 On this record, it is not clear that Govern teaches injecting molten metal into the die element. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses injecting or pouring molten metal into a void for casting a metal vane component. Examiner's Answer dated March 13, 2015 ("Ans."), at 3 (citing Wang i-f 140). 6 In an investment casting process, wax is injected into a mold appropriately shaped in accordance with the design of the component to be cast. The wax is solidified to form a wax model, and the wax model with an embedded ceramic core is repeatedly dipped in ceramic slurry to form a ceramic shell around the wax pattern. After removing the wax, all that remains is the ceramic core disposed in and attached to the ceramic shell mold, thereby forming a mold-core assembly. The component is cast by solidifying molten metal in the mold-core assembly. The ceramic mold is then removed and the core is leached out. Wang i-fi-1104--106; see also Wang i-f 11 ("The molten metal is cooled and solidifies, and then the external shell and internal core are suitably removed leaving behind the desired metallic turbine blade in which the internal cooling passages are found."). 4 Appeal2015-005773 Application 13/248,338 made of a single material and Wang forms a component made only of metal. App. Br. 5 (citing Govern, col. 5, 11. 34--65; Wang i-f 11). In the rejection on appeal, the Examiner does not rely on the final product of the casting method in either Govern or Wang. Rather, the Examiner relies on an intermediate product formed in those methods. The Examiner finds: Though the ceramic materials of the core and shell are not part of the final casting in either Govern or Wang, the solidified metal surrounding the ceramic casting core is considered to be an intermediate product that is equated to Applicant's product of solidified metal surrounding the spar. Ans. 4. In response, the Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art "would not understand an 'intermediate product' to be the equivalent of a cast 'hybrid component."' Reply Br. 4, n.1. 7 The Appellants' argument is persuasive of reversible error. The Appellants disclose that exemplary hybrid components include "a turbine blade for a turbine section of a gas turbine engine" and "aeronautical components including blades, vanes, panels, boas and any other structural part of the gas turbine engine." Spec. i-f 30. Based on that disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a hybrid component formed by the claimed method must be capable of performing its intended final end use, e.g., a turbine blade for a turbine section of a gas turbine engine. 8 See Spec. i-f 30. Clearly, the intermediate 7 Reply Brief dated May 13, 2015. 8 See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (during examination, "the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification"). 5 Appeal2015-005773 Application 13/248,338 products disclosed in Govern and Wang, comprising, inter alia, a casting core, are not capable of performing their intended final end uses. See e.g., Govern, col. 2, 11. 52---60 (disclosed method fabricates a hollow airfoil); Wang i-f 24 (disclosed method creates a hollow turbine blade). Rather, the intermediate products disclosed in Govern and Wang must undergo additional processing steps (e.g., the step of removing the casting core) to function as intended. The Examiner concludes that "[t]he current claim language does not preclude that further processing steps occur after solidification of the molten metal around the spar within the casting die." Ans. 4. To the contrary, claims 1 and 32 both recite the step of "solidifying the molten metal within the cavity to form [a] hybrid component" (App. Br. 9, 11 (emphasis added)). Thus, in the claimed method, solidification of the molten metal forms the hybrid component. Similarly, claim 31 recites the step of "die casting the hybrid gas turbine engine component in a die casting process." App. Br. 10. That is, the hybrid gas turbine engine component is fonned by die casting. According to the casting methods disclosed in Govern and Wang, hollow components are formed by removing a casting core after the molten metal is solidified. The Examiner has failed to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that die casting includes the step of removing a casting core. For that reason, the Examiner has failed to show that the step of "die casting the hybrid gas turbine engine component in a die casting process" is taught by either Govern or Wang. See App. Br. 10. 6 Appeal2015-005773 Application 13/248,338 Based on the foregoing, the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 31, and 32 are not sustained. 9 The Examiner's reliance on the remaining prior art of record in the rejections of dependent claims 2-8 and 21-30 does not cure the deficiencies identified above. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2-8 and 21-30 are not sustained. C. DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 9 In the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 32, the Examiner relies on Schirra to show the claimed shot tube and shot tube plunger. Final 12-13. 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation