Ex Parte Gartland et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2010

10956440 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MATHEW GARTLAND
and MARK A. LIVINGS
____________________

Appeal 2009-004248
Application 10/956,440
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Decided: April 26, 2010
____________________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-10, 12-14, and 24-29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2009-004248
Application 10/956,440

2
Appellants’ invention relates to “a coating apparatus, and more
particularly to a coating chamber for depositing a coating on a surface of an
internal air passage of an aerospace component.” (Spec. ¶ [0001].)
Figure 2 illustrates an embodiment of the apparatus and is reproduced
below:

Fig. 2 is a cross-sectional view of the embodiment.
Claim 1, with the reference numerals from Figure 2 inserted, is
illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. An apparatus [40] for coating internal passages [42] of a
component [44], the apparatus comprising:
a first coating chamber [50];
a second coating chamber [62] disposed in said first coating
chamber [50];
Appeal 2009-004248
Application 10/956,440

3
a mounting member [54] having a port [64] including a flow path that
fluidly connects said first coating chamber [50] and said second coating
chamber [62], said port [64] being adapted to receive the component [44];
and
a support member [78] between said mounting member [54] and said
first coating chamber [50], wherein said support member [78] detachably
supports said mounting member [54].

Figure 4 provides another view of the apparatus, and is reproduced
below:

Figure 4 is another cross-sectional view of the apparatus of Figure 2
Figure 4 shows support member 78 between mounting member 54 and
first coating chamber 50. The second coating chamber 62 is shown within
mounting member 54.
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
First Named Inventor Document No. Issue or Pub. Date
Galmiche
Grybowski
Rigney
US 4,096,296
US 5,071,678
US 5,221,354
Jun. 20, 1978
Dec. 10, 1991
Jun. 22, 1993
Appeal 2009-004248
Application 10/956,440

4
Irvine US 5,507,306 Apr. 16, 1996

The following rejections are presented in the Answer and are subject
to our review:1
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Grybowski;
Claim 6, 28, and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grybowski;
Claims 8 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grybowski in view of Rigney;
Claims 8 and 24-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grybowski in view of Irvine;
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-14, and 27-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Grybowski in view of Galmiche;
Claims 8 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grybowski and Galmiche, and further in view of Rigney;
and
Claims 8 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grybowski and Galmiche, and further in view of Irvine.
II. DISPOSITIVE ISSUE
The Examiner relies on Grybowski as describing the first coating
chamber, second coating chamber, and mounting member required by all the
claims (Ans. 3; Claim 1). The Examiner further finds that Grybowski

1 The Examiner lists a number of rejections as new grounds of rejection
(Ans. 2). Appellants address these new grounds of rejection in their Reply
Appeal 2009-004248
Application 10/956,440

5
describes a support member between the mounting member and first coating
member or that such a support member would have been obvious in view of
Galmiche (Ans. 3 and 7-8).
The Appellants contend that Grybowski does not teach the required
first coating chamber or support member and Galmiche does not render the
support member obvious (Reply Br. 2).
Did the Examiner err in finding that Grybowski describes, or
Grybowski in view of Galmiche suggests, a first coating chamber and a
support member between a mounting member and the first coating chamber
as required by all the claims?
After a review of all the evidence, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are particularly relevant for
disposing of the issue on appeal.
1. The Examiner finds that Grybowski teaches an apparatus with a first
coating chamber 114, a mounting member 228 which forms the second
coating chamber, and a support member shown by hash marks under a
bottom wall 234 (Ans. 3-4).
2. Figure 2 of Grybowski shows the relied upon apparatus and is
reproduced below:

Brief (Reply Br. 2-3). The issues presented by the designated new grounds
are, therefore, ripe for our review.
Appeal 2009-004248
Application 10/956,440

6

Figure 2 is a schematic view of the apparatus
3. According to Grybowski, reference numeral 114 defines a sidewall of a
furnace 112. Disposed within the furnace 112 are upper and lower retorts
128 and 228. Component parts 130 are coated within the upper retort
128. Coating does not take place outside of the retorts.
4. The furnace 112 of Grybowski is analogous to the heating chamber 48
shown in Appellants' Figure 2.
5. Galmiche depicts in Figure 1 a coating chamber 5 atop triangles within
an oven 6 (Fig. 1; Galmiche, col. 17, ll. 38-42).
Appeal 2009-004248
Application 10/956,440

7
6. The Examiner finds that the triangles of Galmiche are support members
and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to support the second chamber
of Grybowski (lower retort 228) with the triangles of Galmiche (Ans. 8).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish
a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073-74 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
V. ANALYSIS
As pointed out by the Appellants, coating takes place in Grybowski’s
retort chamber 128. Grybowski's furnace 112 functions analogously to
Appellants’ heating chamber 48 shown in Appellants' Figure 2. The
Examiner offers no rationale supporting the finding that sidewalls 114 of
Grybowski’s furnace 112 meet the requirements of a “coating chamber” as
claimed. The evidence, in light of Appellants’ argument and in the absence
of a reasonable rationale, does not support the Examiner's finding.
Given that the Examiner has not established that sidewalls 114 of
Grybowski's furnace 112 meet the requirements of a coating chamber as
claimed, it further follows that any element, such as that shown by the hash
marks under reference number 234 of Grybowski or the triangles of
Galmiche, is not "a support member between said mounting member and
said first coating chamber."
Appeal 2009-004248
Application 10/956,440

8
VI. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we do not sustain the rejections maintained
by the Examiner.
VII. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

cam

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009