Ex Parte Flandermeyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2016

13495245 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/495,245 06/13/2012 Brian K. Flandermeyer
54549 7590 06/06/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
PA13450UAA;67097-1361PUS2 7283
EXAMINER
VETERE, ROBERT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN K. FLANDERMEYER and MICHAEL A. KMETZ
Appeal2015-000998
Application 13/495,245
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed Jun. 13, 2012; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") mailed Feb. 3, 2014; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.");
and Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.").
2 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000998
Application 13/495,245
BACKGROUND
The subject matter involved in this appeal relates to multilayer
interface coatings for composite articles. Spec 1. For example, Appellants
disclose a ceramic matrix containing reinforcement fibers, in which a triplex
coating is provided between the fibers and the matrix. Claims 1 and 14
illustrate the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A composite article comprising:
a substrate; and
a multilayer coating on the substrate, the multilayer
coating including an inner layer near the substrate, an outermost
layer on the inner layer, and an intermediate layer between the
inner layer and the outermost layer, the inner layer and the
outermost layer are boron-containing materials and the
intermediate layer is a silicon-containing ceramic material.
14. A composite article comprising:
a ceramic matrix;
reinforcement fibers dispersed within the ceramic matrix;
and
a triplex coating between the reinforcement fibers and the
ceramic matrix, the triplex coating including a boron nitride
layer interfaced with the reinforcement fibers, a boron-
containing layer interfaced with the ceramic matrix, and an
intermediate silicon-containing layer between the boron nitride
layer and the boron-containing layer.
2
Appeal2015-000998
Application 13/495,245
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintained the following grounds of rejection: 3
I. Claims 1-15, 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Petrak4 and Sangeeta. 5
II. Claims 16-19, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Petrak, Sangeeta, and Sherwood. 6
DISCUSSION
I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellants argue claims 1-7, 11-15, 20,
21, and 23 as a group. Br. 3-5. In accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative and decide the
propriety of Rejection I as applied to these claims based on the
representative claim alone. Claims 8-10 are argued as a separate group, Br.
5-6, and will be separately addressed.
The Examiner found that Petrak discloses a ceramic matrix reinforced
with silicon carbide fibers, and a fiber coating including a silicon nitride
layer formed over an inner boron nitride layer. Final Act. 3 (citing Petrak
col. 2, 11. 18-35). The Examiner further found that Petrak teaches the
optional presence of additional coating layers, but does not expressly
identify boron nitride as an outermost coating layer. Id. See Petrak col. 3, 11.
12-16 ("Optionally, additional coatings may be applied over a single binary
3 Ans. 2; Final Act. 3--4.
4 US 6,350,713 Bl, issued Feb. 26, 2002 ("Petrak").
5 US 5,628,938, issued May 13, 1997 ("Sangeeta").
6 US 2005/0276961 Al, published Dec. 15, 2005 ("Sherwood").
3
Appeal2015-000998
Application 13/495,245
coating of BN/ShN4 ... These additional coatings may be any known
interface coating ... "). The Examiner additionally found that Sangeeta
teaches use of boron nitride as an interface coating, and that such coating
further provides beneficial deflection of cracks at the coating-matrix
interface. Final Act. 3. Appellants do not dispute the foregoing findings.
See Br. 3-6.
Appellants direct their arguments against the Examiner's
determination that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious in light
of Sangeeta to select boron nitride as Petrak' s optional outer interface
coating.
Appellants contend that adding an additional boron nitride layer to
Petrak's coating for the purpose of interface crack deflection would have
been superfluous because Petrak already includes a boron nitride coating.
Br. 3-4. We disagree, and are persuaded by the Examiner's reasoning, Ans.
2, that Petrak;s boron nitride coating exists at the fiber-coating interface,
whereas Sangeeta teaches use of a boron nitride layer as a matrix interface,
to provide crack deflection at the coating-matrix interface. Moreover, the
possibility that inner and outer boron nitride coating layers might provide
cumulative crack deflection benefits does not outweigh Petrak's explicit
teaching, col. 3, 11. 12-16, to provide a known interface coating over the
disclosed BN/ShN4 coating.
Appellants also argue that Sangeeta provides the boron nitride
interface coating as the only coating layer, and for that reason cannot be
characterized as "an outer or outermost coating." Br. 4. We find this
argument unpersuasive because it addresses Sangeeta individually, without
regard to the collective teaching of the prior art which the Examiner relied
4
Appeal2015-000998
Application 13/495,245
upon in reaching the obviousness determination. See In re Keller, 642 F .2d
413, 425 (CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references."). Here, the boron nitride layer suggested by
Sangeeta becomes the outer layer when it is provided over Petrak' s
BN/ShN4 coating. The fact that Sangeeta alone does not disclose a
multilayer coating does not negate its combination with Petrak in the manner
articulated by the Examiner.
Neither are we persuaded by Appellants' contention, Br. 5, that Petrak
teaches that boron nitride is susceptible to moisture corrosion, such that one
skilled in the art would have been dissuaded from its use as the outer coating
layer at the matrix interface. Appellants point to column 1, lines 43-46, of
Petrak where it is stated that, "ceramic matrix composites ... that use BN
coated fibers are susceptible to moisture corrosion at low temperatures."
However, as the Examiner correctly noted, Ans. 3, the foregoing statement
in Petrak refers to moisture susceptibility of the ceramic matrix composite.
Appellants do not point us to any evidence or technical reasoning to support
their contention that boron nitride itself would have been considered
susceptible to moisture corrosion. To the contrary, Petrak teaches that boron
nitride is a preferred filler which may be incorporated into the matrix in
amounts up to about 65 volume percent. On this record, Appellants do not
persuade us that one skilled in the art would have viewed Petrak as teaching
against selection of boron nitride as the outer coating layer.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner's obviousness determination with regard to claims 1-
7, 13-15, and 20.
5
Appeal2015-000998
Application 13/495,245
With regard to dependent claims 8-10, Appellants further argue that
the combination of Petrak and Sangeeta would include an embodiment in
which the inner and outer boron-containing layers would be of equal
thickness, contrary to Appellants' claims. Br. 6. Only Appellants' claim 8
requires that the outer boron-containing layer is thicker than the inner boron-
containing layer.7 The Examiner found that Petrak teaches an inner boron-
containing layer thickness of from 0.02 to 1 µm. Final Act. 3, citing Petrak
col. 3, 11. 6-10. Appellants argue that Sangeeta discloses a boron-containing
layer thickness of 1 to 2 µm, such that selecting exactly 1 µm for each would
result in the two boron-containing layers being of equal thickness. Br. 6.
Notwithstanding the singular point of overlap at 1 µm, we are not persuaded
that a layer disclosed as 1 to 2 µm would not have been understood to be
thicker than a layer disclosed as 0.02 to 1 µm, particularly in this instance
where Petrak further teaches a preferred inner layer thickness of 0.05 to 0.3
µm. Petrak col. 3, 11. 7-8. Neither do Appellants direct us to any evidence
or argument that addresses the Examiner's determination that it would have
been prima facie obvious to identify preferred relative thicknesses of the
coating layers from within the disclosed thickness ratios. Compare Br. 6
with Final Act. 2.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants also do not persuade us of
reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness determination with regard to
claims 8-10.
7 Appellants do not present any argument directed to the particular features
recited in either claim 9 or claim 10. We therefore decide the propriety of
Rejection I as applied to claims 8-10 based on claim 8 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal2015-000998
Application 13/495,245
We therefore sustain Rejection I.
II
With regard to Rejection II, Appellants solely rely on the same
arguments presented in support of patentability of claim 1. Br. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection II for the same reasons given above in
connection with Rejection I.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
7