Ex Parte Champagne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

12329672 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

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.
12/329,672 12/08/2008 VICTOR K CHAMPAGNE ARL 06-45 9348
21364 7590 06/17/2016
U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATTN: RDRL-LOC-I
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI, MD 20783-1138
EXAMINER
LEE, CHEE-CHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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 VICTOR K. CHAMPAGNE,
PHILLIP F. LEYMAN, and DENNIS J. HELFRITCH
____________________

Appeal 2014-002253
Application 12/329,672
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 8 and 11–14. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 1–7 and 15–19 are withdrawn.
Id. Claims 9 and 10 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-002253
Application 12/329,672

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 8, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below.
8. A cold spray deposition apparatus comprising:
a nozzle having a converging section and a diverging
terminal section;
an at least ninety (90) atomic percent helium gas supply;
a path consisting of a single conduit between said gas
supply and said nozzle delivering a gas from said gas supply to
an inlet to the converging section of said nozzle at a pressure of
between about 2 and about 6 MPa and at an unheated
temperature of less than about 30° Celsius, and independent of
exposure to a heater; and
a particle feeder providing ductile material particles
having a mean x-y-z axially averaged linear dimension of
between about 0.9 and about 95 microns to said nozzle.

REJECTIONS
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Dykhuizen (Gas Dynamic Principles of Cold Spray, Journal of Thermal
Spray Technology, vol. 7, June 1998).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dykhuizen and Yoshida (US 6,284,047 B1, iss. Sept. 4, 2001).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dykhuizen and Molz (US 2007/0138147 A1, pub. June
21, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Claims 8 and 12 as anticipated by Dykhuizen
Appellants argue claims 8 and 12 as a group. See Appeal Br. 4–5.
We select claim 8 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 12
stands or falls with claim 8.
Appeal 2014-002253
Application 12/329,672

3
The Examiner found that Dykhuizen discloses a cold spray deposition
apparatus comprising a nozzle with converging and diverging sections, at
least ninety atomic percent helium gas supply, and a single conduit between
the gas supply and nozzle, as claimed. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Dykhuizen discloses two conduits and a square
box as equivalent to the single conduit recited in claim 8. Appeal Br. 4–5.
Appellants also argue that Dykhuizen meters powder particles into the gas
flow via a separate conduit as shown in Figure 3. Reply Br. 4. Appellants
further argue that Figure 3 of Dykhuizen shows a first conduit for the gas
supply, a second conduit for metering “Powder Supply” into the gas flow,
and a third conduit upstream of the nozzle. Id. at 5.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because we interpret “a path
consisting of a single conduit between said gas supply and said nozzle
delivering a gas from said gas supply to an inlet to the converging section of
said nozzle” to mean that the gas supply is connected to the nozzle inlet by a
single conduit. This interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of
this limitation that the path between the gas supply and the nozzle is a single
conduit. It is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which describes the
Prior Art as using a bifurcated gas inlet that supplies gas to the nozzle inlet
via: (1) a path through a gas heater and (2) a path through a powder feeder.
Spec. ¶ 4, Fig. 1. Appellants contrast their invention with this prior art as a
process that feeds the gas by a single path. Id. ¶ 6.
Claim 8 recites “a particle feeder providing ductile material particles
. . . to said nozzle.” The manner in which this occurs is not claimed. Claim
8 does not require the particle feeder to provide particles to the nozzle via
the single conduit gas path between the gas supply and the nozzle.
Appeal 2014-002253
Application 12/329,672

4
Even if claim 8 could be interpreted to require particles to be provided
to the nozzle via the single conduit gas supply path, as Appellants argue,
Dykhuizen discloses this configuration as well, as illustrated below.

Figure 3 of Dykhuizen is “a typical cold-spray device.” Dykhuizen,
205. Gas flows through a single conduit between “Compressed and Heated
Process Gas Supply” and the nozzle via “Powder Supply” where “particles
are metered into the gas flow immediately upstream of the converging
section of the nozzle.” Id. (emphasis added); see Ans. 7. Appellants’ Figure
2, reproduced below, shows a similar single path between gas source 12 and
nozzle inlet 20 through regulator 14 and conduit 16 to particle feeder 26
where particles are entrained in the gas flow before passing through conduit
28 and flow control valve 30 to nozzle 18. Spec. ¶ 16 (p. 8).

Figure 2 of Appellants’ disclosure depicts a cold spray apparatus with
what Appellants describe as a single pathway to nozzle 18. Spec. ¶ 16 (p. 8,
ll. 10–16).
Appeal 2014-002253
Application 12/329,672

5
Claim 8 is an open-ended claim for an apparatus “comprising” various
elements and thus does not preclude the existence of other paths for non-gas
elements. Appellants’ description of a prior art “bifurcated” gas supply,
reproduced below, illustrates a powder feeder that dispenses particles to an
unheated gas path via a vertical path that is similar to the horizontal powder
supply path in Figure 3 of Dykhuizen. Yet, Appellants do not characterize
this feature as a third path or conduit of the “bifurcated” gas supply.

Instead, Figure 1 illustrates a gas supply bifurcated to convey part of the gas
through a heater. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 9. Thus, Appellants’ argument that the supply
of ductile material particles to the gas in claim 8 comprises a gas path that is
separate from the recited single conduit is not persuasive.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 12.
Claim 11 as unpatentable over Dykhuizen and Yoshida
Claim 11 depends from claim 8 and recites the apparatus comprising
“a robotic arm moving said nozzle in preselected directions.” The Examiner
found that Yoshida teaches a coating machine 19 mounted on a wrist portion
5 of a coating robot. Ans. 5. The Examiner determined that it would have
been obvious to mount Dykhuizen’s cold spray apparatus on a robotic arm
of Yoshida to improve the working mechanism of the system. Id. at 6.
Appeal 2014-002253
Application 12/329,672

6
Appellants argue again that Dykhuizen does not describe a single
conduit and Yoshida’s rotary atomizing head type coating system does not
yield a robotic arm as claimed. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants also argue that
Dykhuizen discloses an analytical model rather than an apparatus for a cold
spray process, so the Examiner’s reason for combining teachings of Yoshida
with Dykhuizen to improve the “working mechanism” of Dykhuizen is not a
proper rationale. Id. at 6–7; Reply Br. 6–8.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
finding that Yoshida discloses a robotic arm that moves a coating nozzle, as
claimed. Yoshida, 1:10–24, Fig. 1; Ans. 5 (citing Yoshida, Fig. 1), 8. The
Examiner’s reason for combining the teachings of Dykhuizen and Yoshida is
supported by a rational underpinning of improving Dykhuizen’s device to
allow for mechanized coating operations, as taught by Yoshida. Yoshida,
5:10–24, 11:35–37. Appellants’ arguments regarding alleged deficiencies of
Dykhuizen as to claim 8 are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above
for claim 8. Because Dykhuizen teaches that “Figure 3 illustrates a typical
cold-spray device,” (Dykhuizen, 205), we are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument that Dykhuizen is a math model with no apparatus to improve with
the robotic teachings of Yoshida. Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 6–8; Ans. 8.
We thus sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Claims 13 and 14 as unpatentable over Dykhuizen and Molz
The Examiner found that Dykhuizen’s cold spray apparatus lacks a
portal connecting the particle feeder to the diverging terminal section of the
nozzle between about 30 and 70 percent of the distance between the minimal
constriction and nozzle outlet, as recited in claims 13 and 14. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2014-002253
Application 12/329,672

7
The Examiner found that Molz teaches a plasma-cold spray apparatus
with a particle feeder (powder injection port 60) that introduces particles into
the diverging terminal section of the nozzle in Figure 1. Id. The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to modify Dykhuizen’s sprayer
with Molz’s teaching to provide a wider range of particle velocities and
temperatures to the system. Id. at 6, 9–10.
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not have combined Molz
and Dykhuizen as suggested by the Examiner because Dykhuizen teaches an
analytical model rather than an apparatus. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants further
argue that Dykhuizen teaches away from a single conduit by using multiple
conduits to supply gas and other materials, and Molz teaches away from
Appellants’ unheated gas by using plasma temperatures in excess of 2000
degrees Celsius at Mach 1.2. Id. Appellants also argue that the Examiner
did not show the desirability of using electric arcs to ionize a process gas at
over 2000 degrees Celsius and transporting the heated gas in a single conduit
at supersonic speeds. Id. at 11.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner proposes to
position the particle feeder outlet of Dykhuizen’s apparatus in the nozzle
outlet, as taught by Molz, to improve operating ranges. Ans. 6, 9–10. The
Examiner does not propose to use Molz’s operating temperatures and gas
velocities in Dykhuizen. Id. The Examiner also found that Dykhuizen and
Molz teach cold-spraying systems that use heated gas to spray a powder
coating material at supersonic speeds to form a coating layer on a substrate,
and that it would have been obvious to introduce particles into the diverging
terminal section of Dykhuizen’s nozzle, as taught by Molz, to provide a
wider operating range of particle velocities and temperatures. Ans. 9–10.
Appeal 2014-002253
Application 12/329,672

8
The Examiner’s findings are supported by a rational underpinning
based on the express teachings of Molz that the system “provides a more
efficient mechanism for producing coatings with the desirable features of a
cold-spray coating.” Molz ¶ 12(emphasis added); see Ans. 6, 9–10. Molz
teaches a variety of powder injection locations including one 60 that falls
within the range of claim 14. See Molz ¶ 23. The Examiner’s findings that
Dykhuizen teaches a cold spray apparatus and Molz teaches a hybrid cold-
spray coating technique are supported by a preponderance of evidence. See
id. ¶ 5; Dykhuizen, 205. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error
in the Examiner’s findings or determination of obviousness. Nor are we
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding Dykhuizen’s alleged teaching
of more than one conduit for the reasons discussed above for claim 8 that
Dykhuizen teaches a single gas path conduit, as claimed.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims of claims 8 and 11–14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED