Ex Parte Bolz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12471710 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/471,710 0512612009
22116 7590 09/02/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrea Bolz
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.
2008P01501US 6387
EXAMINER
GAITONDE, MEG HA MEHTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREA BOLZ, ECKART SCHUMANN, and
RAMESH SUBRAMANIAN1
Appeal2015-002825
Application 12/471,710
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision3 rejecting claims 15, 17, 21-28, and 31 in the above-identified
application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. Second Appeal Brief 3, Aug. 29, 2014 [hereinafter
Appeal Br.].
2 Second Notice of Appeal, July 7, 2014.
3 Non-Final Office Action 2, Apr. 4, 2014 [hereinafter Action] (reopening
prosecution following the First Appeal Brief, Jan. 31, 2014); see also Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002825
Application 12/471,710
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "a thermal barrier coating
system made of two ceramic layers." Spec. i-f 2. Sole independent claim 15
is representative:
15. A thermal barrier coating system for a turbine blade
having an airfoil attached to a platform, comprising
a substrate including the airfoil and the platform;
a ceramic coating having two ceramic layers, comprising:
an inner ceramic layer having a first thickness; and
an outer ceramic layer having a second thickness,
wherein the ceramic coating is applied on the airfoil and
platform, and a thickness of the ceramic coating across the
airfoil is thicker than a thickness of the ceramic coating across
the platform; and,
wherein the second thickness of the outer ceramic layer on
the airfoil is greater than the first thickness of the inner ceramic
layer on the airfoil, and, wherein the first thickness of the inner
ceramic layer and the second thickness of the outer ceramic
layer on the platform are substantially equal.
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection4 :
I. Claims 15, 17, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 31 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over UK Patent Application
GB 2 431 932 A (published May 9, 2007) [hereinafter Schumann] in view of
U.S. Patent No. 5,677,641 (issued Sept. 16, 1997) [hereinafter Poirier].
Action 3-5.
II. Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schumann in view of Poirier, and further in view of U.S.
4 The provisional rejection of claim 15 on grounds of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting, see Action 6-7, was withdrawn in the
Answer. See Answer 2.
2
Appeal2015-002825
Application 12/471,710
Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0292859 Al (published Nov.
27, 2008) [hereinafter Subramanian]. Action 5---6.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Schumann teaches a dual-layer ceramic
coating in which the inner ceramic layer is 10-50% of the total thickness of
both layers, see Action 3, meaning either "that the two layers may be either
equal in thickness or that the second layer may be thicker than the first."
Answer 2. The Examiner also finds that Poirier, in a context that applies to
coatings for turbine blades, teaches that "the thermal barrier coating is
applied in a thicker layer in areas of the component that are exposed to the
highest temperatures." Action 3. In light of these findings, the Examiner
concludes as follows, regarding claim 15:
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply a
thicker layer of the ceramic coating on the airfoil and a
thinner coating on the platform because the ceramic is the
thermal barrier that protects the component from
excessive heat, and the airfoil is the part of the turbine
that contacts more of the excessive heat than the
platform.
Id. at 3. The Examiner further concludes as follows:
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a
thicker outer ceramic layer on the airfoil than the inner
ceramic layer on the airfoil and a substantially equal
thickness for the outer and inner ceramic layers on the
platform because the airfoil is the region that is subjected
to higher temperatures than the platform, and the outer
ceramic layer would be easier to renew or refurbish than
the inner ceramic layer.
Id. at 3--4 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal2015-002825
Application 12/471,710
Appellants argue that "it is not readily apparent to the skilled artisan
nor explained by the Examiner (or the cited references) how a thicker outer
ceramic layer than an inner ceramic layer on an airfoil would result in easier
renewal or refurbishment than a coating having equivalent outer layer/inner
ceramic layer thicknesses." Appeal Br. 8.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 15. The Examiner has not supported the rationale relating
to renewal or refurbishment with citations to any evidence that would
establish the state of the prior art at the time of filing. While Schumann does
refer to refurbishment of a ceramic-coated component, it appears to teach
that refurbishment requires removal of all ceramic layers (e.g., by
sandblasting), fixing any cracks in the substrate, and then recoating with the
ceramic layers. See Schumann 7:23-29. Thus, it is not clear from this
record that the artisan would have expected that the use of a thicker outer
ceramic layer, relative to the inner layer, would aid renewal or refurbishment
of a coated turbine blade.
Because the Examiner's decision to reject independent claim 15
depends, in material part, on the Examiner's insufficiently supported
conclusion with respect to combining the teachings of Schumann and
Poirier, we determine that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
independent claim 15. Because the Examiner's additional findings
regarding the dependent claims do not cure this error, we also determine that
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting dependent claims 17, 21-28, and
31.
4
Appeal2015-002825
Application 12/471,710
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5