Ex Parte Cheung

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 16, 2019

14190422 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/190,422 02/26/2014 Kin-Leung Cheung
32292 7590 04/18/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP (PWC)
1, PLACE VILLE MARIE
SUITE 2500
MONTREAL, QC H3B IRI
CANADA
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.
05002993-1691US 8413
EXAMINER
ZHAO, XIAO SI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2019 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):
ipcanada@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIN-LEUNG CHEUNG
Appeal 2018-003778
Application 14/190,422
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks relief from the Examiner's final rejection of
claims 1-7 and 9-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal Br. 4--8. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(a) and 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates generally "to abradable coatings in gas
turbine engine components, and more specifically to methods of forming
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., which
according to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003778
Application 14/190,422
abradable coatings." Spec. ,r 1. Appellant explains that to form an
abradable coating, "dry lubricant particles are coated onto a component."
Id. ,r 2. In conventional spraying techniques, at cold temperatures, the dry
lubricant particles shatter upon impact with the component such that they do
not adhere to the component, but at high temperatures, the dry lubricant
particles decompose. Id.
Appellant's method seeks to form an abradable surface with
"relatively little losses of dry lubricant particles." Id. ,r 33. In part,
Appellant's method makes use of trapping particles that deform at impact
with the component and trap the dry lubricant particles by mechanical
interlock to the component or onto the deposited coating. Id. ,r,r 17, 33, and
Fig. 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter and is reproduced below:
A method of forming an abradable coating on a gas
turbine engine component, the method comprising, in sequence:
placing dry lubricant particles and trapping particles in a
channel having a spraying end and containing a gas;
causing at least one shockwave in the gas to travel in the
channel toward the spraying end, the at least one shockwave
causing the dry lubricant particles and the trapping particles to
travel in the channel with it, the at least one shockwave
reducing interparticle spacing and increasing particles density;
directing a resulting flow of the dry lubricant particles
and the trapping particles from the spraying end at a supersonic
velocity to impact the component; and then
plastically deforming the trapping particles upon
impacting the component with the resulting flow so as to trap
the dry lubricant particles with the deformed trapping particles
onto the component to provide the abradable coating.
2
Appeal 2018-003778
Application 14/190,422
OPINION
Claims 1-6 and 12-17
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6 and 12-17 as obvious over Suhonen2
in view of Wagner. 3 Final Action 3-5. Appellant argues claims 1---6
and 12-17 as a group. Appeal Br. 4--7. We select claim 1 as representative
of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant first challenges the Examiner's finding that Suhonen
discloses an "abradable" coating, arguing that Suhonen teaches an abrasion-
resistant coating, which is the opposite of an abradable coating. Appeal
Br. 4---6 (citing Suhonen ,r 40); Reply Br. 1--4. The teaching from Suhonen,
upon which Appellant relies, states that "the coating of the invention will
also protect the substrate from abrasion." Suhonen ,r 40. Appellant's claims
however, require that the coating must be abradable, whereas the relied-
upon statement from Suhonen suggests only that the substrate is abrasion-
resistant-not necessarily the coating itself. Id. We discern no error,
moreover, in the Examiner's well-reasoned finding that Suhonen's coating,
which "protects a substrate from abrasion," is deposited on surfaces where it
will encounter "normal wear and tear," including "abrasion," which will
erode "its initial thickness and resistance over time;" in other words, the
coating is abradable within the meaning of the claims. Final Action 9.
Appellant's Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, filed on April 3,
2017, and the Handbook of Thermal Spray Technology cited therein, show
that abradable coatings differ from abrasion-resistant coatings in the art of
gas turbine engines. Deel. ,r,r 4--8; Appeal Br. 4---6. That evidence is
2 US 2014/0318315 Al (published Oct. 30, 2014).
3 US 6,365,222 Bl (issued Apr. 2, 2002).
3
Appeal 2018-003778
Application 14/190,422
consistent with the specification's description of an abradable coating as one
that will "wear upon contact with the blade tips." Spec. ,r 2; see also Appeal
Br. 5 ("Abradable coatings are designed to wear upon friction.").
Accordingly, the evidence does not adequately rebut the Examiner's
conclusion that, in at least one embodiment, Suhonen discloses an abradable
coating. See Final Action 3 (citing Suhonen ,r,r 43--47); see also Suhonen
,r 26 ( explaining that the starting material for spraying may be a metal
(including nickel), polymer, or a mixture of these).
Specifically, the Examiner explains that, "since Suhonen/Wagner
disclose the same coating with dry lubricant particles and trapping particles
(see Example 1, [0043] further discloses 'MoS2 is a known solid
lubricant' ... ), applied by the same method of cold spraying,
Suhonen/Wagner disclose an abradable coating." Answer 6 (quoting
Suhonen ,r 43). Under these circumstances, the Examiner reasonably
concludes that the coating of Suhonen has the same abradable characteristic
as the coating claimed by Appellant. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255
( CCP A 1977). Furthermore, the Examiner's position that the formation of a
solid lubricant provides an abradable coating is consistent with how
Appellant uses the term in the specification. Spec. ,r 15 ("The dry lubricant
particles 22 (also sometimes referred to as solid lubricant) are the particles
that will constitute the abradable coating 20 on the component 23.").
Appellant also argues that Wagner does not teach the use of trapping
particles sprayed with dry lubricant particles that deform on contact so as to
trap the lubricant particles. Appeal Br. 6-7. We, however, agree with the
Examiner that Appellant improperly attacks Wagner individually, where the
rejection is based on a combination of Suhonen and Wagner. See Answer 7-
4
Appeal 2018-003778
Application 14/190,422
8 (citing In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). The Examiner explains that Wagner teaches
that, in cold spraying applications, particles plastically deform to create a
bond between the particles and the target surface, such that, based on
Wagner's teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that in Suhonen's cold spraying process, the trapping particles would also
plastically deform to trap the dry lubricant particles together with the
deformed trapping particles onto the component. Id.
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 11
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 9, 10, and 11, each of which depend
from claim 1 as obvious over Suhonen in view of Wagner, and further in
view of additional secondary prior art references. Final Action 5-8.
Appellant does set forth additional arguments in response to any of these
rejections. Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, our decision as to the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1---6 and 12-17 applies equally to claims 7, 9, 10, and 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9-17 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
5