UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020003324 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 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.
15/023,566 03/21/2016 Joseph Parkos Jr. 72724US02 (U420279US2) 5770
135291 7590 05/03/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Pratt & Whitney
20 Church Street
22 Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
KIM, SANG K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH PARKOS JR., JAMES O. HANSEN, and
MARK R. JAWOROWSKI
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 7, 11–13, 16, 17, 21, and 22.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Technologies Corporation, formerly known as United Technologies
Corporation. See Submission dated April 22, 2020; Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “rotating assemblies for turbomachinery
and, more specifically, to a fan blade assembly.” Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fan blade assembly, comprising:
a conductive airfoil including a sheath receiving surface;
and
a conductive sheath including an airfoil contact surface;
wherein at least one of the sheath receiving surface and
the airfoil contact surface include a nonconductive anodized
layer, the nonconductive anodized layer is duplex anodized or
anodized in a solution of sodium hydroxide or chromic acid;
and
wherein the airfoil contact surface of the conductive
sheath is bonded to the sheath receiving surface of the
conductive airfoil, wherein the nonconductive anodized layer
prevents a flow of electrons in a potential galvanic current
between the conductive sheath and the conductive airfoil when
the conductive sheath is bonded to the sheath receiving surface.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parkos2 and Albericci.3
Claims 11–13, 16, 17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Parkos and Henkel.4

2 US 2012/0152893 A1, published June 21, 2012.
3 US 4,690,736, issued Sept. 1, 1987.
4 Electro Ceramic Coatings, Henkel AG & Co., May 2013.
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

3
OPINION
Obviousness—Parkos and Albericci
The Examiner finds that Parkos discloses most of the features of claim
1, including conductive airfoil 32 with sheath receiving surface 58,
conductive sheath 36 with airfoil contact surface (inner surface) 53, and an
anodized layer on at least one of the sheath receiving surface and the airfoil
contact surface (the oxide layer formed on the bonding surface via
anodizing). Final Act. 4 (citing Parkos, Figs. 2, 4A, 4B, 5; ¶ 26). The
Examiner finds that Parkos does not explicitly teach that the anodized
(oxide) layer is duplex anodized or anodized in a solution of sodium
hydroxide or chromic acid, as recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner finds,
however, that “Parkos does teach that the anodized oxide layer promotes
adhesive bond strength” and “also teaches the need to prevent corrosion and
erosion.” Id. (citing Parkos ¶¶ 15, 16, 26).
The Examiner finds that Albericci teaches a method of treating
aluminum for use in the same field as Parkos and Appellant’s invention,
namely “aircraft applications (e.g., gas turbine engine components).” Final
Act. 4. More specifically, the Examiner finds that “Albericci teaches a
method of chromic acid anodizing on an aluminum article to form an
environmentally stable adhesive receptive oxide layer” that “provides a high
performance, corrosion resistant, durable, and cost effective treatment for
structural adhesive bonding.” Id. at 4–5 (citing Albericci, Abstr.; 2:44–47).
The Examiner determines:
Therefore, in order to provide an anodized oxide layer
that promotes adhesive bond strength as well as corrosion
resistance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill[]
in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Parkos’[s]
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

4
anodized layer to be formed by Albericci’s chromic acid
anodizing, because as Albericci teaches, this method provides a
high performance, corrosion resistant, durable, and cost
effective treatment for structural adhesive bonding.
Id. at 5 (citing Albericci 2:44–47).
Appellant argues that Parkos’s phosphoric anodizing process produces
a very porous and thin layer that is partially conductive. Appeal Br. 6.
According to Appellant, “because this layer is so thin, even when epoxy
primed it is prone to damage and loses its ability to insulate the dissimilar
metals.” Id. Appellant does not present any evidence to support these
assertions, which, thus, are entitled to little, if any, weight. See In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant submits that “Parkos does not specifically state that the . . .
anodized layer is non-conductive.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further
contends that Parkos’s scrim sheet 60, which “prevents galvanic corrosion
by ensuring at least a minimal separation between sheath 36 and airfoil 32”
(Parkos ¶ 35), would not be necessary if galvanic separation were already
provided. Appeal Br. 6–7 (citing Parkos ¶¶ 34, 35). Additionally, Appellant
points out that Parkos applies a primer to the anodized layer that “may
contain a corrosion inhibiting material such as a chromate-containing
compound.” Id. at 7 (citing Parkos ¶ 24). Appellant asserts that “a
chromate-containing compound is not non-conductive as it contains a metal
(e.g., chromium)” and that “[a] corrosion inhibiting material prevents access
of a corrosive substance to the material covered by the corrosion inhibiting
material” and “is thus not non-conductive.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments regarding Parkos’s anodized layer and primer
are unavailing because, as discussed above, the Examiner’s rejection
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

5
proposes modifying Parkos’s anodized layer by forming it using Albericci’s
chromic acid anodizing process, in order to provide “a high performance,
corrosion resistant, durable, and cost effective treatment for structural
adhesive bonding.” See Final Act. 5. Further, the Examiner relies on the
layer formed as taught by Albericci in the combination, not the anodized
layer or primer disclosed by Parkos, as the nonconductive anodized layer.
See Ans. 4–5. Notably, as the Examiner points out, Appellant does not
argue that the anodized layer formed using Albericci’s chromic acid
anodizing process “is not capable of providing the claimed non-conductive
anodized layer wherein the nonconductive anodized layer prevents a flow of
electrons in a potential galvanic current.” Id. at 4.
Appellant “submits that Albericci does not teach or disclose the use of
nonconductive layers for use with the bonding of two dissimilar materials
together.” Appeal Br. 7. However, Appellant does not provide any
evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to suggest that those skilled in
the art would have been dissuaded from using Albericci’s anodic oxide layer
in an application in which two dissimilar materials are bonded together.
Albericci teaches a method of pre-treating aluminum or aluminum alloy
articles “to form an environmentally stable adhesive receptive oxide layer,
the method comprising anodizing said articles in a bath containing an
aqueous solution of chromic acid” to produce an anodic oxide film that
“provide[s] a high performance, corrosion resistant, durable, and cost
effective treatment for structural adhesive bonding.” Albericci, Abstr.;
2:43–46. Appellant does not direct our attention to any teaching in Albericci
that indicates or suggests Albericci’s method is applicable only to bonding
of similar materials. To the contrary, Albericci’s teaching of providing a
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

6
stable adhesive oxide layer that is corrosion resistant for structural adhesive
bonding suggests that Albericci’s anodic oxide layer would be suitable for
applications in which two dissimilar materials are bonded together.
Appellant additionally asserts that the rejection of claim 1 is “based
upon improper hindsight reasoning.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant does not
identify any flaw in the Examiner’s reasoning, discussed above, or point to
any knowledge relied on by the Examiner that was gleaned only from
Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and thereby fails to
support the hindsight assertion. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the
time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge
gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Parkos and Albericci. In contesting
the rejection of claims 2–4, 6, and 7, which depend from claim 1, Appellant
merely reiterates claim recitations and argues that these features are not
found in the cited references. Appeal Br. 8–9. These vague statements do
not constitute separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (the predecessor to § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) as requiring
“more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

7
not found in the prior art”). Appellant has waived any argument for separate
patentability of these dependent claims. See id. In other words, claims 2–4,
6, and 7 fall with claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–4, 6, and 7 as
unpatentable over Parkos and Albericci.

Obviousness—Parkos and Henkel
The Examiner finds that Parkos discloses most of the features of
claim 11. See Final Act. 6. The Examiner also finds that “Parkos recognizes
the corrosion between the aluminum airfoil 32 and titanium sheath 36 as a
problem [that] needs to be resolved.” Id. at 7 (citing Parkos ¶¶ 24, 26, 34,
and 35). However, the Examiner finds that Parkos does not explicitly teach
that at least one of the sheath receiving surface and the airfoil contact surface
includes a nonconductive ceramic layer as recited in claim 11. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds that Henkel teaches a ceramic coating in a related
art that eliminates corrosion on Aluminium (an alternative spelling for
Aluminum) and Titanium. Final Act. 7. More specifically, the Examiner
finds:
Henkel teaches that the ceramic coating provides excellent
corrosion protection for Aluminium and Titanium (see Henkel,
pages 1 and 2), wherein the ceramic layer comprises an electro-
deposited ceramic coating (electro ceramic coatings; see
Henkel, page 1 ), and wherein the ceramic layer comprises a
ceramic coating deposited by a deposition process selected from
the group consisting of: a cathodic arc process and a physical
vapor process (electro ceramic coatings on aluminium and
titanium, i.e., having the same coating as the product by a
cathodic arc process and a physical vapor process; product-by-
process claims are not limited to the process but only the
structure implied by the steps; see MPEP 2113).
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

8
Id. (boldface omitted).
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify at
least one of the sheath receiving surface and the airfoil contact surface of
Parkos to incorporate Henkel’s ceramic coating “to provide better corrosion
protection between Parkos’[s] aluminum airfoil and titanium sheath.” Final
Act. 7. The Examiner finds that, because “Henkel teaches that the ceramic
coating can virtually eliminate corrosion on Aluminum and Titanium
(Henkel, page 1)” and “[b]ecause corrosion occurs when there is a flow of
electrons in a galvanic potential between two materials, Henkel’s ceramic
coating . . . inherently is a nonconductive ceramic layer that prevents a flow
of electrons in a potential galvanic current between two materials.” Id.
Thus, according to the Examiner, the modified structure of the combination
“would have a nonconductive ceramic layer that prevent[s] the flow of
electrons in a potential galvanic current between the conductive sheath and
the conductive airfoil when the conductive sheath is bonded to the sheath
receiving surface.” Id. at 7–8.
Appellant argues that Henkel does not state “that Henkel’s Electro
Ceramic Coatings prevent a flow of electrons in a potential galvanic current
between two dissimilar materials (e.g., the conductive sheath and the
conductive airfoil) when the conductive sheath is bonded to the sheath
receiving surface.” Appeal Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive because
the Examiner does not rely on an explicit statement in Henkel to this effect.
Appellant does not present any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to
refute the Examiner’s analysis that, because Henkel’s electro ceramic
coatings virtually eliminate corrosion between Aluminum and Titanium, and
because corrosion occurs when there is a flow of electrons in a galvanic
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

9
potential between two materials, an electro ceramic coating as taught by
Henkel in the modified structure of Parkos would perform this function.
Appellant argues that Henkel does not state “that their electro ceramic
coatings would be suitable for providing a structural bond between a sheath
and a fan blade.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also contends that “Parkos
already employs a scrim 60 for dielectric separation thus there is no need for
additional nonconductive layers.” Id. Thus, according to Appellant, the
rejection of claim 11 is “based upon improper hindsight reasoning.” Id.
Appellant does not identify any flaw in the Examiner’s reasoning,
discussed above, or point to any knowledge relied on by the Examiner that
was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise
within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and
thereby fails to support the hindsight assertion. Moreover, Appellant does
not provide any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to indicate that
Henkel’s electro ceramic coating would be unsuitable for use between a
Titanium sheath and a fan blade (i.e., Aluminum airfoil) bonded to one
another. In fact, Henkel’s teaching that the electro ceramic coatings
virtually eliminate corrosion on Aluminium (i.e., Aluminum) and Titanium
establishes a reasonable expectation that these coatings would be suitable for
use with Parkos’s titanium alloy sheath and aluminum airfoil. See Henkel 1;
Parkos ¶¶ 18, 19. Further, although Parkos provides scrim sheet 60 to
prevent galvanic corrosion (see Parkos ¶ 35), this would not be a
disincentive to provide an additional corrosion resistant layer to achieve
redundancy. As the Examiner points out, Parkos employs multiple corrosion
prevention measures, such as the epoxy primer layers, in addition to the
scrim. Ans. 7 (citing Parkos ¶¶ 24, 26).
Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

10
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Parkos and Henkel. In contesting
the rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, and 22, which depend from claim
11, Appellant merely reiterates claim recitations and argues that these
features are not found in the cited references. Appeal Br. 11–12. These
vague statements do not constitute separate arguments for patentability of
the dependent claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). See Lovin,
652 F.3d at 1357. Appellant has waived any argument for separate
patentability of these dependent claims. See id. In other words, claims 12,
13, 16, 17, 21, and 22 fall with claim 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11–13, 16, 17, 21, and
22 as unpatentable over Parkos and Henkel.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.

Appeal 2020-003324
Application 15/023,566

11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 7 103 Parkos, Albericci 1–4, 6, 7
11–13, 16,
17, 21, 22
103 Parkos, Henkel 11–13, 16,
17, 21, 22

Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 7,
11–13, 16,
17, 21, 22

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