Christopher W. Strock et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2019

14687660 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2019)

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.
14/687,660 04/15/2015 Christopher W. Strock 80747US01-U (15-155) 7495
52237 7590 07/16/2019
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
DELRUE, BRIAN CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2019 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 CHRISTOPHER W. STROCK and
JAMES O. HANSEN1
____________________

Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–15, and 17–22, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 United Technologies Corporation (Appellant) is the Applicant as provided
in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A fan blade, comprising:
an airfoil section including a free end, the airfoil section
being formed of a composite core with a metallic skin that at
least partially sheaths the composite core less a free end; and
an abrasive coating applied to the free end to form
an abrasive tip, wherein the abrasive coating includes a metal
matrix and hard particles dispersed through the metal matrix.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite.
II. Claims 1–4, 8–15, and 17–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Thompson (EP 3 015 646 A1, published
May 4, 2016) and Benoit (US 5,603,603, issued Feb. 18, 1997).
III. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Thompson, Benoit, and Draghi2 (EP 2 540 961
A2, published Jan. 2, 2013).

DISCUSSION
Rejection I—Indefiniteness
Appellant does not contest the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. See Appeal Br. 7 (listing only the

2 The first named inventor on this published application is Peter Wrabel.
However, both the Examiner and Appellant refer to this reference as
“Draghi,” so, for convenience, we do likewise in this opinion. See Final
Act. 18–19; Ans. 7–8; Appeal Br. 10.
Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660

3
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as grounds of rejection to be reviewed on
appeal); id. at 8–11 (presenting arguments only against the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103). Thus, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 6 and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 985 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (holding that the Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the
rejection on appeal); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. 8, 2017 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the
examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any
challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain
it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the
examiner’s answer.”).

Rejection II—Obviousness: Thompson and Benoit
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11–15, and 17–22
The Examiner found that Thompson discloses a fan blade comprising
an airfoil section (substrate 31) formed of a composite core with a metallic
skin (metalwork 32) at least partially covering the core less a free end (tip
33), and an abrasive coating (blade cap 36) applied to the free end, as recited
in claim 1, but that Thompson does not explicitly disclose that “the abrasive
coating includes a metal matrix and hard particles dispersed through the
metal matrix.” Final Act. 7–8 (citing Thompson, Figs. 3–6; ¶¶ 27–28, 42).
The Examiner found that Benoit teaches an abrasive coating (abrasive layer
12) including a metal matrix and hard particles dispersed through the metal
matrix. Id. at 8 (citing Benoit, Figs. 1–2; 4:50–55). The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to modify Thompson’s blade by
Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660

4
applying to the free end an abrasive coating as taught by Benoit, comprising
a metal matrix and hard particles dispersed through the metal matrix, “for
the purpose of protecting the leading and trailing edges, and the convex and
concave surfaces, for that distance from the intersection of the blade tip
surface and the leading and trailing edges which is subjected to the highest
stresses upon operation of the engine.” Final Act. 8 (citing Benoit 5:53–57).
Appellant argues that “there is simply no proper motivation to modify
Thompson in view of Benoit as proposed” because Thompson’s mesh cap 36
“is beneficial because it avoids the cap 36 from becoming overly stiff,”
which “may be advantageous to a fan blade but simply has no applicability
whatsoever to a turbine blade as taught in Benoit” and “would not even
survive the temperature conditions in a turbine section.” Appeal Br. 8. This
argument is unavailing because it does not address the rejection set forth by
the Examiner. As the Examiner points out, the rejection proposes modifying
Thompson’s fan blade with the coating of Benoit, not modifying the turbine
blade of Benoit with the mesh cap of Thompson, or placing Thompson’s fan
blade in the turbine section. Ans. 4.
Further, the Examiner reiterates the reason for modifying Thompson,
namely, to protect “the leading and trailing edges and the convex and
concave surfaces from the adverse effects of high stresses during operation
of the engine,” and emphasizes that this reason to combine was found in
Benoit. Id. at 3–4 (citing Benoit 5:53–57). Appellant does not identify any
flaw in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
Appellant also argues that “the cubic boron nitride layer is
inapplicable to a fan blade as such material cannot be applied to a fan blade
typically manufactured of an aluminum alloy or composite material which
Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660

5
operates in a low temperature environment and would be ruined by the
process of Benoit.” Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant asserts that electroplating, as
taught by Benoit, would “destroy the composite material” of a fan blade. Id.
at 9. According to Appellant, the teachings of a fan blade and a turbine
blade are “mutually exclusive” because they “are directed to completely
different environments within different sections of the gas turbine engine as
well as different materials appropriate for those sections.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments regarding cubic boron nitride and
electroplating destroying the composite material of a fan blade amount to
unsupported attorney argument and, thus, are entitled to little, if any, weight.
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, Thompson’s
disclosure of cubic boron nitride as a suitable grit, for use with a blade
having a body comprising composite material, belies Appellant’s argument
that such a material would be unsuitable for use with Thompson’s fan blade.
See Thompson ¶¶ 33, 42, 45. Further, as the Examiner points out, Benoit
teaches other abrasive materials, such as alumina and alumina-zirconia, as
alternatives to cubic boron nitride, as well as several other alternative
application techniques, such as “plasma spraying, powder metallurgy
techniques, laser welding, and brazing,” as alternatives to electroplating for
applying the abrasive tip coating. Ans. 5; Benoit 4:6–10; 5:4–10, 63–65.
Thus, even assuming electroplating cubic boron nitride material to a fan
blade manufactured of composite material would destroy, or be otherwise
unsuitable for, Thompson’s fan blade, as Appellant argues, this argument
does not identify error in the combination.
Appellant additionally asserts that each of the application techniques
taught by Benoit is a high temperature application method for coating
Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660

6
materials “to high temperature resistant materials typical of turbine blade
substrates.” Reply Br. 3. Once again, Appellant provides no evidence to
support this assertion, which, thus, amounts to unsupported attorney
argument entitled to little, if any, weight. Furthermore, as the Examiner
points out, Benoit teaches plasma spraying, which is the particular type of
thermal spraying disclosed in Appellant’s application for use with
Appellant’s composite core 90. Spec. ¶¶ 43, 53, 55. Appellant counters
that, “although plasma spraying may be a type of thermal spraying, thermal
spraying as utilized by Appellant necessarily prevents the more specific and
extremely high temperatures for plasma spraying.” Reply Br. 4. However,
Appellant does not identify, nor do we find, any disclosure in Appellant’s
Specification directed to temperature ranges or restrictions for Appellant’s
plasma spraying procedure. To the extent that a person having ordinary skill
in the art would have understood Appellant’s disclosed plasma spraying
technique to be limited to processes that prevent “the more specific and
extremely high temperatures” that Appellant asserts are experienced in
Benoit’s disclosed abrasive tip coating techniques, the person of ordinary
skill in the art would have known how to modify Benoit’s techniques in a
similar manner to coat Thompson’s composite core fan blade.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Thompson and Benoit.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 4, 8, 9,
11–15, and 17–22, for which Appellant does not present any separate
arguments for patentability and which, thus, fall with claim 1, as
unpatentable over Thompson and Benoit. See Appeal Br. 8–10.
Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660

7
Claims 2 and 3
In contesting the rejection of these claims, Appellant merely recites
the additional claim elements set forth in claims 2 and 3 and reiterates the
argument that a composite core “is not a proper substrate for electroplating
cubic boron nitride,” which fails to apprise us of error, for the reasons
discussed above. Appeal Br. 9–10. The statements reciting the specific
limitations of claims 2 and 3 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 not found in the prior art”).
For the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2
and 3 as unpatentable over Thompson and Benoit.
Claim 10
The Examiner found that Thompson discloses that “the abrasive
coating is bonded to the free end” of the blade. Final Act. 10. Appellant
argues that “bonding is perfectly applicable to a low temperature fan blade
but would be inoperable in a turbine section which operates in high
temperatures.” Appeal Br. 10. This argument is not pertinent to the
rejection because Thompson’s blade is a composite fan blade, and the
Examiner does not propose to move Thompson’s fan blade to the turbine
section of the engine. See Thompson ¶¶ 24, 26, 27; Final Act. 7–8, 10.
Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim
10 as unpatentable over Thompson and Benoit, which we sustain.
Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660

8

Rejection III—Obviousness: Thompson, Benoit, and Draghi
Claim 6
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to further
modify Thompson’s fan blade, comprising an abrasive coating including “a
metal matrix and hard particles dispersed through the metal matrix, as
disclosed by Thompson and Benoit,” so that “the metal matrix and the
metal-based material are compositionally composed of the same
predominant metal, as taught by Draghi, since the matrix material is selected
form [sic] bonding properties and chemical compatibility with the material
of the airfoil substrate.” Final Act. 18–19 (citing Draghi ¶ 39).
Appellant contends,
[T]he Examiner admits that Thompson and Benoit do not
disclose wherein the metal matrix and the metal based material
compositionally composes the same predominant metal.
Appellant respectfully submits that this further substantiates
Appellant’s argument above as a fan blade and a turbine blade
are in such different temperature environments that the material
selection is necessarily different.
Appeal Br. 10–11. This contention does not identify any deficiency in the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning in concluding that the subject matter of
claim 6 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 6 as unpatentable over Thompson, Benoit, and Draghi.
Claim 7
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious for the
predominant metal to be “aluminum, as taught by Draghi, since the matrix
material is selected form [sic] bonding properties and chemical compatibility
Appeal 2018-007509
Application 14/687,660

9
with the material of the airfoil substrate and it is known in the art to use
aluminum.” Final Act. 19 (citing Draghi ¶ 39).
Appellant contends that the material (i.e., aluminum) recited in claim
7 “is applicable to a fan blade but not a turbine blade.” Appeal Br. 11.
According to Appellant, “no turbine blades are manufactured of aluminum
because of the high temperatures within the turbine section. Here again,
Appellant differentiates from the proposed combination based on the
claimed materials.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is not germane to the rejection because, as
discussed above, Thompson’s blade is a fan blade. See Thompson ¶¶ 24, 26,
27. Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 7 as
unpatentable over Thompson, Benoit, and Draghi, which we, thus, sustain.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–15, and 17–22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
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