UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2021

2020005177 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/037,698 05/19/2016 Lei Chen 73450US02 (13-371-2) 5176
52237 7590 07/29/2021
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
CHUNG, HO-SUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEI CHEN1
Appeal 2020-005177
Application 15/037,698
Technology Center 1700
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to an
aluminum component coating system, which have been rejected as obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“Aluminum alloys are extensively used in the aeronautical industry
due to their high strength and low density. . . . Pitting and intergranular

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies
Corporation. Suppl. Appeal Br. 3. “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as
defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appeal 2020-005177
Application 15/037,698

2
corrosion of the aluminum alloys is one key risk to be mitigated to ensure
reliability.” Spec. ¶ 2.
“The present disclosure relates to applying a corrosion resistant
aluminum coating with a sacrificial underlayer to protect aluminum alloy
components, such as fan blades, from localized corrosion and galvanic
corrosion.” Id. ¶ 26. “The sacrificial underlayer 16 may be formed from pure
zinc or a zinc alloy.” Id. ¶ 28. “After the underlayer 16 has been formed on
the substrate 12, an aluminum coating 18 is deposited onto the sacrificial or
under layer 16.” Id. ¶ 31.
“[W]hen the top aluminum coating 18 fails such as by cracking[,]
[t]he top coating failure allows electrolytes to penetrate through the barrier
layer, which would create a corrosive environment that could lead to
corrosion damage of the base aluminum alloy.” Id. ¶ 32. “With the presence
of a more active zinc underlayer, corrosion occurs on the sacrificial zinc
layer to delay the attack of the base alloy to allow mitigation actions to be
taken.” Id.
Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 15 are on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. A coating system for an aluminum component which
comprises:
a substrate formed from an aluminum material;
a zinc material sacrificial layer deposited on said substrate; and
an aluminum coating deposited over said zinc sacrificial layer,
wherein said substrate is a fan blade of a turbine engine, and
wherein said sacrificial layer has a thickness of less than 10
microns and said aluminum coating has a thickness in the range
of from 5 microns to 50 microns.
Appeal 2020-005177
Application 15/037,698

3
OPINION
Claims 1–3 and 5–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
based on Watson,2 Piascik,3 and alternatively Dean.4 Final Action5 2. Claim
15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Watson,
Piascik, and alternatively Dean, further in view of either Cline6 or Cammer.7
Final Action 4. Appellant has waived arguments directed to the rejection of
claim 15 (see Appeal Br. 10), so the same issue is dispositive for both
rejections.
The Examiner finds that “Watson teaches a coating system for an
aluminum component,” which comprises the aluminum material substrate
and zinc sacrificial layer recited in claim 1, but “Watson does not explicitly
teach an aluminum coating deposited over said zinc sacrificial layer.” Final
Action 2–3.
The Examiner finds that “Piascik teaches aerospace gas turbine blades
are susceptible to corrosion or erosion due to ‘exposure to salt, sulfur, and
sand.’” Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds that “Piascik teaches electroplating
[with] aluminum and its alloys,” and teaches that depositing “aluminum or
its alloys on substrates have been used ‘for corrosion and wear and tear
resistance.’” Id. The Examiner finds that “Dean teaches it was known to put
coatings on top of sacrificial layers.” Id.

2 US 2013/0192996 A1, published August 1, 2013.
3 US 2012/0156519 A1, published June 21, 2012.
4 US 4,036,602, issued July 19, 1977.
5 Office Action mailed Oct. 8, 2019.
6 US 2003/0071019 A1, published April 17, 2003.
7 US 2009/0165299 A1, published July 2, 2009.
Appeal 2020-005177
Application 15/037,698

4
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Watson’s “component with Piascik’s aluminum or aluminum alloy coating
on top of the zinc layer ‘for corrosion and wear and tear resistance.’” Id. at
3–4. Alternatively, the Examiner reasons that it “would have been obvious to
have put Piascik’s coating on top of [Watson’s] zinc layer as Dean teaches it
was known to put additional coatings on top of a sacrificial layer to yield the
predictable results of having not just the overcoat benefits but also the
sacrificial layer protection.” Id. at 4.
We agree with the Examiner that the cited references support a prima
facie case of obviousness. Watson teaches that “[a]luminum alloys have
many positive attributes as engineering materials,” and are “candidates for
operation in the cooler sections of modern gas turbine engines. Shrouds,
cases, blades, and vanes are potential applications.” Watson ¶ 2 (emphasis
added).
However, “it is well known that aluminum alloys exposed to aqueous
environments with high salinity and/or sulfur content suffer from various
forms of debilitating corrosion.” Id. ¶ 3. Watson discloses “[a]n aluminum
alloy component ha[ving] a surface region alloyed with an anodic metal such
as zinc, beryllium, or magnesium to increase corrosion resistance in aqueous
environments with high salinity and/or sulfur content.” Id. ¶ 5. Watson states
that the “surface alloy region . . . is anodic with respect to the rest of the
component [and] protects the component from atmospheric corrosion and
corrosion in aqueous environments with high salinity and/or sulfur content
by sacrificially concentrating the corrosion in the near surface region of the
Appeal 2020-005177
Application 15/037,698

5
component thereby allowing a pit to increase in width rather than in depth.”
Id. ¶ 16.
Thus, as the Examiner found (Final Action 2–3), Watson suggests a
fan blade for a turbine engine made from an aluminum material (i.e.,
aluminum alloy) coated with a zinc sacrificial layer. Watson does not
suggest an additional aluminum coating deposited over the zinc sacrificial
layer, as recited in Appellant’s claims.
However, Piascik teaches that “gas turbine engine components such as
. . . blades are susceptible to oxidation because they encounter severe
operating conditions at high temperature conditions. As used herein, ‘severe
operating conditions’ include high gas velocities and exposure to salt, sulfur,
and sand.” Piascik ¶ 2. Piascik also teaches that “[i]onic liquids have been
used to deposit aluminum on non-superalloy substrates for corrosion and
wear and tear resistance in a lab-scale three-step process.” Id. ¶ 5.
Dean teaches “protection of metal substrates, such as ferrous and non-
ferrous metals, from corrosion in highly saline and/or marine atmospheres.”
Dean 1:5–7. In Dean’s method, “[t]he metal substrate of interest is first
coated with a magnesium-reacting matrix metal,” such as zinc, and a “non-
metallic layer may then be applied to the sacrificial coating as an overcoat to
provide in effect a duplex coating, that is to say, a sacrificial coating of a
magnesium-containing alloy and a glassy non-metallic overcoat.” Id. at
2:42–65.
We agree with the Examiner that, based on the above teachings, the
product of claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Watson suggests a turbine engine fan blade made from an aluminum
Appeal 2020-005177
Application 15/037,698

6
alloy and coated with a layer of zinc to resist corrosion. Watson ¶¶ 2, 5.
Piascik teaches depositing aluminum on non-superalloy substrates to
increase corrosion resistance and wear-and-tear resistance. Piascik ¶ 5. Dean
teaches applying a (non-metallic) coating over a zinc sacrificial coating “to
provide in effect a duplex coating.” Dean 2:62–63.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it an
obvious modification of Watson’s turbine engine fan blade to add a coating
of aluminum over the zinc sacrificial layer “to provide in effect a duplex
coating” (Dean 2:62–63) and thereby increase corrosion resistance and wear-
and-tear resistance (Piascik ¶ 5).
Appellant argues that “Watson . . . would instruct a person having
ordinary skill in the art away from depositing an aluminum coating over the
zinc sacrificial layer” because Watson “teaches that ‘it is well known that
aluminum alloys exposed to aqueous environments with high salinity and/or
sulfur content suffer from various forms of debilitating corrosion.’” Appeal
Br. 6. Thus, Appellant argues, “[m]odifying Watson to reach the subject
matter of the pending claims places an aluminum coating precisely where
Watson teaches it would be subject to various forms of debilitating
corrosion. This is a clear teaching away.” Id. Appellant argues that Watson
teaches that “the corrosion problem is solved by having a surface region
alloyed with an anodic metal such as zinc. The zinc in Watson is in the
surface layer.” Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that “the combination of teachings in Watson and
Piascik would not lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to put an
aluminum layer over the zinc sacrificial layer” because Watson teaches “that
Appeal 2020-005177
Application 15/037,698

7
aluminum on the surface needs to be protected by the zinc layer, and the zinc
layer is in the surface region. . . . At best, the teachings of Piascik might be
seen as an alternative to the zinc layer of Watson.” Id. at 8–9.
Appellant also argues that
Dean teaches that a sacrificial coating can be covered with an
adherent non-metallic overcoat. . . . A person having ordinary
skill in the art, following Dean, might consider applying a non-
metallic coat such as a conversion coating over the zinc, but this
does not arrive at the subject matter of claim 1.
Id. at 9.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Watson states that “it is well
known that aluminum alloys exposed to aqueous environments with high
salinity and/or sulfur content suffer from various forms of debilitating
corrosion.” Watson ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Watson therefore teaches coating
a component made from an aluminum alloy with zinc to protect it from
“atmospheric corrosion and corrosion from aqueous environments with high
salinity and/or sulfur content.” Id. ¶ 16.
Piascik, however, is not limited to coating substrates with an
aluminum alloy; Piascik states that “[i]onic liquids have been used to deposit
aluminum on non-superalloy substrates for corrosion and wear and tear
resistance.” Piascik ¶ 5 (emphasis added). Appellant has not pointed to
evidence in the record showing that a skilled artisan would have thought
Piascik’s suggestion—that an aluminum coating provides “corrosion and
wear and tear resistance”—would not apply to Watson’s zinc-coated,
aluminum alloy turbine engine fan blade.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Watson, Piascik, and Dean. Claims 2, 3, and 5–7 were not argued
Appeal 2020-005177
Application 15/037,698

8
separately and fall with claim 1. Appellant has waived arguments with
respect to the rejection of claim 15. See Appeal Br. 10. We therefore affirm
the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Watson, Piascik,
Dean, and either Cline or Cammer.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7 103 Watson, Piascik, Dean 1–3, 5–7
15 103 Watson, Piascik, Dean,
Cline, Cammer
15
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–7,
15

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED