Ex Parte Beardsley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 2012

10891778 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2012)

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.
10/891,778 07/15/2004 M. Brad Beardsley 04-177 1300
7590 07/13/2012
ATTN: Dustin Johnson
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
1300 I St. NW Ste 700
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
PATEL, VISHAL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte M. BRAD BEARDSLEY, DAVID E. BOWMAN,
MARK S. DIEKEVERS, KAREN R. RAAB,
WILLIAM C. SMITH, and D. TRENT WEAVER
____________

Appeal 2009-014807
Application 10/891,778
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
M. Brad Beardsley et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-19 and 21-
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anderton (US 6,102,408;
Appeal 2009-014807
Application 10/891,778

2
iss. Aug. 15, 2000), Zajchowski (US 6,815,099 B1; iss. Nov. 9, 2004), and
Hirabayashi (US 5,807,432; iss. Sep. 15, 1998). Claims 1-10, 20, and 24-41
have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is “directed to a sealing system
appropriate for use with an endless track for a track-type work machine.”
Spec. 1, para. [01]. Claim 11, reproduced below, is the sole independent
claim and is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
11. A sealing system for a work machine,
comprising:
a bushing having an interior surface, an
exterior surface, and an end face, at least a portion
of at least one of the end face and the exterior
surface having a sealing surface formed of a
coating including a material having a hardness
level greater than about 1200 Knoop, the sealing
surface being greater than about 35 microns thick,
and having an average roughness (Ra) of about
0.25 micron or less; and
a seal assembly including an annular sealing
member in sealing contact with the sealing surface,
the sealing member and the sealing surface being
configured to facilitate lubrication of the bushing.

CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
Appellants argue claims 11-19 and 21-23 as a single group. App.
Br. 14. We select independent claim 11 as representative and the remaining
claims 12-19 and 21-23 stand or fall with claim 11. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2009-014807
Application 10/891,778

3
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the coating taught by Zajchowski in the
sealing system of Anderton “to provide a coating that has less residual
tensile stress and reduces cracking tendencies.” Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
combine Anderton and Zajchowski in the manner suggested by the
Examiner because Anderton specifically teaches away from use of thick
films, which is precisely what the Office relies on Zajchowski to disclose.”
App. Br. 10. See also App. Br. 11 (citing Anderton, col. 5, ll. 39-61 as
teaching that “[a]nything greater than 20 micrometers would be ‘too
thick’”). Appellants also argue that “to provide Anderton’s coating at the
thickness taught by Zajchowski (i.e. 75 micrometers) would render the
coating of Anderton unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” App. Br. 12.
Appellants further assert that the Examiner has not provided any evidence or
teaching to support the determination that using the high velocity oxyfuel
(HVOF) process, disclosed in Zajchowski, to modify Anderton would result
in a thick coating that does not flake off. App. Br. 13.1
The issue presented by this appeal is whether one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led by the teaching of Zajchowski to modify the

1 The Examiner presented a new ground of rejection in the Answer that
added Hirabayashi to the combination of Anderton and Zajchowski. Ans. 3;
Supp. Ans. Appellants argued in the Reply Brief that “[a]dding Hirabayashi
to Anderton and Zajchowski does not change [the fact that Anderton
specifically teaches away from use of thick films.]” Reply Br. 2.
Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner’s findings as to the
scope and content of Hirabayashi or the Examiner’s proposed combination
of the teaching of Hirabayashi to the modified sealing system of Anderton.
Appeal 2009-014807
Application 10/891,778

4
coating of Anderton’s sealing system to result in a sealing surface greater
than about 35 microns thick, as called for in claim 11.
ANALYSIS
Anderton discloses “a track link assembly having a resiliently bonded
protectively coated seal member.” Col. 1, ll. 10-11. Anderton discusses that
a problem with existing track seal assembly design, which employs a sealing
member axially urged into sliding sealing engagement against a polished
bushing end face by a resilient rubber load ring, is grooving of the bushing
end face. Col. 1, ll. 29-37. If the grooves become sufficiently deep,
abrasive particles can enter the track joint and lubricant contained within the
track joint can leak out. Col. 1, ll. 40-45. The end faces of the bushings are
periodically inspected and if the grooving is significant, the entire bushing is
replaced, which increases the cost of maintaining the crawler tractor. Col. 1,
ll. 46-50. Anderton discloses that “[p]rotective coating 46 can be secured to
seal member 42 by processes such as a chemical vapor deposition process, a
physical vapor deposition process, a sputtering deposition process, and a
plasma spray process.” Col. 5, ll. 17-20. Anderton teaches:
Protective coating 46 is preferably disposed on exterior
surface 43 of seal member 42 to a thickness that sufficiently
protects seal member 42 against grooving cause[d] by abrasive
materials. However, protective coating 46 should not be
disposed on exterior surface 43 of seal member 42 to a
thickness that inhibits the coating’s ability to adhere to exterior
surface 43. For example, if the coating of chromium nitride or
titanium nitride secured to exterior surface 43 is too thick, the
coating has a tendency to flake off thereby reducing the
protection against abrasive materials. On the other hand, if the
coating of chromium nitride or titanium nitride secured to
exterior surface 43 is too thin, seal member 42 will not be
Appeal 2009-014807
Application 10/891,778

5
sufficiently protected against the grooving caused by abrasive
materials.
Col. 5, ll. 39-52. Anderton discloses a preferred coating thickness of 1-8
micrometers for chromium nitride and 1-20 micrometers for titanium nitride.
Col. 5, ll. 52-55.
Zajchowski relates to “brush seals used in rotating machinery” and, in
particular, “a hard coating for the surface upon which the brush is rubbed, a
coating which has a superior combination of wear resistance and durability,
which is resistant to cracking, and which does not cause excessive bristle
wear” and a “coating application method.” Col. 1, ll. 9-16. Zajchowski
discloses that “[u]sing a standard plasma spray process it was found not
possible to apply [an industry standard chromium carbide in a nickel-chrome
binder] coating thicker than about 6-8 mils without cracking and spalling.”
Col. 1, ll. 48-56. Zajchowski teaches that the invention coating is applied
using a HVOF process, which imparts substantially more energy to the
powder being deposited so that the coating exhibits considerably less
residual tensile stress than other types of coatings. Col. 2, ll. 23-30.
Zajchowski teaches that “[t]he reduction in residual tensile stresses reduces
the cracking tendency of the coating . . . [which] allow the deposition of
substantially thicker coatings without cracking or spalling.” Col. 2, ll. 31-
36. Zajchowski teaches:
Thus, while the prior art plasma deposit coatings could not be
deposited to thicknesses greater than about 6-8 mils without
cracking, the present coatings can be applied to thicknesses of
more than 40 mils without cracking. This is a substantial
improvement which has significant economic implications.
The invention coatings are also denser, less porous, have
greater bond strength to the substrate and have higher
interparticle bond strengths than do the prior art plasma sprayed
Appeal 2009-014807
Application 10/891,778

6
coatings. These improved properties are all significant for long
life brush seal performance.
Col. 2, ll. 36-45.
While Anderton teaches that chromium nitride and titanium nitride
coatings deposited by a plasma spray process have a preferred maximum
thickness of 8 micrometers and 20 micrometers, respectively, Anderton does
not teach away from using thicker coatings deposited using other types of
coating processes, which may not be subject to flaking. “A reference may
be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed.
Cir. 1999)). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from
Anderton that but for the problem of flaking, it would be desirable to have a
relatively thicker coating to lengthen the life of the sealing system and
reduce the cost of bushing replacement and maintenance.
Zajchowski relates to a hard coating used for a sealing surface in
rotating machinery, and offers a solution to the problem of cracking and
spalling that occurs in thicker coatings that have been deposited by plasma
spraying. Zajchowski’s solution is to apply a chromium carbide and nickel-
chrome coating using the HVOF process, which Zajchowski teaches reduces
the residual tensile stresses in the coating and thus reduces the cracking
tendency of the coating, and allows for a thicker coating than if deposited by
plasma spraying. Zajchowski further teaches that the use of its thicker
coating is advantageous because it is denser, less porous, and has greater
bond strength as compared to plasma sprayed coatings, which lengthens the
life of the sealing system.
Appeal 2009-014807
Application 10/891,778

7
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use Zajchowski’s thicker coating applied by the
HVOF process in place of Anderton’s thinner protective coating applied by
plasma spraying in the sealing system of Anderton to allow for a thicker
coating without encountering the problem of cracking of the coating, and
thus to lengthen the life of the sealing system. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”) Anderton does not
teach away from such a modification.
Appellants’ argument that “to provide Anderton’s coating at the
thickness taught by Zajchowski (i.e. 75 micrometers) would render the
coating of Anderton unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (App. Br. 12),
is not persuasive because the Examiner did not propose modifying Anderton
by making Anderton’s coating thicker. Rather, the Examiner proposed to
replace Anderton’s coating with the chromium carbide and nickel-chrome
coating of Zajchowski applied using the HVOF process. Ans. 3-4.
Appellants’ argument that the rejection should not be sustained because the
Examiner has not provided any evidence or teaching to support the
determination that using the HVOF process, disclosed in Zajchowski, to
modify Anderton would result in a thick coating that does not flake off
(App. Br. 13) is likewise not persuasive because the Examiner did not
propose using the HVOF process with the chromium nitride and titanium
nitride coatings of Anderton to reduce flaking. Rather, the Examiner
proposed using the coating of Zajchowski on the sealing system of
Appeal 2009-014807
Application 10/891,778

8
Anderton. Ans. 3-4. Based on the teaching in Zajchowski of the advantages
obtained by Zajchowski’s coating and coating method discussed supra, we
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to use Zajchowski’s sealing surface coating and coating
method in the sealing system of Anderton to obtain a thicker coating for the
reasons provided herein.
CONCLUSION
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the teaching of
Zajchowski to modify the coating of Anderton’s sealing system to result in a
sealing surface greater than about 35 microns thick, as called for in claim 11.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-19 and
21-23.
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

Klh