Ex Parte CUI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 21, 2018

14477389 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/477,389 09/04/2014 Yan CUI
13152 7590 12/25/2018
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
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.
261684A-l/22113-0137-CIP 1369
EXAMINER
GAMINO, CARLOS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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 YAN CUI, SRIKANTH CHANDRUDU KOTTILINGAM,
BRIAN LEE TOLLISON, DECHAO LIN,
and DAVID EDWARD SCHICK 1
Appeal2018-003268
Application 14/477,389
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and LILAN
REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The Appeal Brief states that the real parties in interest are the Inventors,
Yan Cui, Srikanth Chandrudu Kottilingam, Brian Lee Tollison, Dechao Lin,
and David Edward Schick, and the Assignee, General Electric Company.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003268
Application 14/477,389
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 17-25, and 27. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is set forth
below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A joining process, comprising:
providing an article having a base material comprising a
superalloy;
positioning the article;
providing a sintered brazing preform comprising a low melt
portion and a high melt portion;
positioning the sintered brazing preform adjacent the base
material so that the sintered brazing preform forms an interface with the
base material of the article; and
friction joining the sintered brazing preform to the base
material by generating sufficient heat by friction at the interface to
melt the low melt portion of the sintered brazing preform at the
interface without melting the high melt portion of the sintered
brazing preform or the base material of the article;
wherein the sintered brazing preform forms a feature on the
article.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 13-15, 23, 24, and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over designworldonline.com "New Materials Take
the Heat in Aerospace Engine Design and Manufacture" (November 11, 2009,
hereinafter "Design") in view of Russo et al. (US 7,371,428 B2; May 13, 2008,
hereinafter "Russo"), Lemelson (US 3,779,446; December 18, 1973), and Christ
(US 2007/0172335 Al; July 26, 2007).
2
Appeal2018-003268
Application 14/477,389
2. Claims 2, 4--8, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Design in view of Russo, Lemelson, and Christ
as applied above, and further in view of Wesgo Metals "Pre-Sintered Preforms" and
Schunk Group "Manufacturing process metal injection moulding technology".
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set
forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellants'
stated position in the record. We thus reverse each rejection essentially for the
reasons provided by Appellants in the record, with the following emphasis.
Claim interpretation is at issue in the instant appeal. Claim 1 recites in part:
friction joining the sintered brazing preform to the base material by generating
sufficient heat by friction at the interface to melt the low melt portion of the
sintered brazing preform at the interface without melting the high melt portion
of the sintered brazing preform or the base material of the article.
Paragraph [0017] of the Specification discloses the definition of "friction
joining" as referring "to generating sufficient heat at the interface between the article
or component and the sintered brazing preform to melt a low melt portion of the
sintered brazing preform without melting the high melt portion of the sintered
brazing preform or any of the base material of the component or article." We thus
interpret this claim term in this manner.
It is the Examiner's position that Lemelson and Christ teach this aspect of the
claimed subject matter. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner states:
Lemelson teaches using frictional heat to melt soldering, brazing, and welding
material in order to join components and that at least one part of a sintered
metal may contain the melting material; 8:37-58. Note that "one part of a
sintered metal may contain the melting material" perfectly describes a PSP
[pre-sintered preform].
3
Appeal2018-003268
Application 14/477,389
Christ teaches joining element (1) to surface (26) by friction welding surface
(4) while also only melting the solder on surface (5) so a solder joint is
formed; 0035 and figure 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention that the heat to braze the PSP could be derived from friction as
taught by Lemelson. One would have been motivated to do this in order to
avoid the two-step bonding process of the tack welding and vacuum brazing,
having to pull a vacuum, and/or shorten the bonding time. Once this step is
realized, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to also friction weld (FW) the PSP as taught by Christ in
order to increase the strength of the joint and/or to allow the braze to also seal
the area around the joint.
Additionally, choosing one bonding technique over another is not a matter of
invention but simply a matter knowing the advantages and disadvantages of
each technique and selecting the one that gives the most desired benefits. In
this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to choose FW over the tack welding and vacuum brazing
in order to avoid the two-step bonding process, having to pull a vacuum, and
being able to bond at lower temperatures.
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to that one would not want to melt the high melt portion
of the PSP since that would destroy some of advantages gained by using
friction to join the PSP to the article. Also note that Christ only wants to melt
the solder.
Final Act. 3--4.
Appellants point out that the Examiner finds that Christ teaches
friction welding while only melting the solder, which the Examiner believes is
"friction joining", but Appellants submit that soldering is not the same as brazing,
and therefore the friction soldering of Christ is not the same as Appellants' "friction
joining". We agree.
Appellants further submit that Christ does not suggest friction joining a
sintered brazing preform to a base material by generating sufficient heat by friction
4
Appeal2018-003268
Application 14/477,389
at the interface to melt the low melt portion of the sintered brazing preform, without
melting the high melt portion of the sintered brazing preform or the base material of
the article, as recited by independent claim 1. We agree.
With regard to Lemelson, Appellants argue that Lemelson teaches a welding
apparatus and a method of welding aligned and abutted sections of pipe and tubing.
Appeal Br. I 0. Appellants argue that Lemelson requires that the material be
capable of being welded together by molecular bonding or fusion and only teaches
rotational friction. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants state that Lemelson suggests joining
two tubes or pipes together by applying a braze ring of a brazing material between
the two pipes to reduce the pressure and temperature required for forming the joint.
Lemelson, col. 8, 11. 37--40. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants argue that Lemelson does not
suggest friction joining a sintered brazing preform to a base material by generating
sufficient heat by friction at the interface to melt the low melt portion of the sintered
brazing preform, without melting the high melt portion of the sintered brazing
preform or the base material of the article, as recited by independent claim 1. We
agree.
In response, the Examiner states:
Lemelson teaches frictional heat can melt solder/braze and that at least one
part of a sintered metal may contain the melting material (note this perfectly
describes a PSP); and Christ teaches friction welding (FW) a joining element
to a surface, while also only melting the solder to form a weld and a solder
joint which is by definition [ofJ frictionjoining (note that the appellant's
definition in paragraph [0017] does not require the low melting point
component to be a braze or to exclude welding). Thus, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
understand and appreciate that the heat to braze the PSP is derived from the
friction process taught by Lemelson. Once this step is realized, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that
a PSP could be FW (friction welded) and brazed simultaneously in manner
similar to that of Christ.
Ans. 2-3.
5
Appeal2018-003268
Application 14/477,389
In the Reply Brief, Appellants state that they are unsure of what distinction
the Examiner is trying to make by stating that "friction joining does not require the
low melting point component to be a braze". Appellants explain that claim 1
requires that the low melt portion must melt, whereas the high melt portion and base
material must not melt, at a braze temperature, as indicated by paragraph [0017] of
their Specification. As stated, supra, the Examiner does not interpret "friction
joining" as requiring the low melting point component to be a braze. Hence, the
Examiner's interpretation of the claim is flawed in this regard. Furthermore, as best
stated by Appellants on page 4 of the Reply Brief, friction welding and friction
soldering are each different from Appellants' friction joining. Appellants explain
that Christ's friction welding melts the base material, and Christ's friction
soldering must occur at a soldering temperature. Christ does not teach brazing or
brazing temperatures or friction joining (as this term is properly interpreted). We
appreciate that the Examiner relies upon Lemelson for teaching welding at brazing
temperatures, but, again, this is within the context of welding, and welding melts the
base material (which is precluded by claim 1 ).
In view of the above, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments in the
record, and reverse each rejection.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
6