Ex Parte HAWLEY et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

14568833 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/568,833 12/12/2014
7055 7590 12/20/2018
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dave HAWLEY
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.
P45765 5117
EXAMINER
ZHOU, QINGZHANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DA VE HAWLEY, RONALD J. MOLZ, and
JOSE COLMENARES
Appeal2018-000333
Application 14/568,833
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-18.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Oerlikon Metco (US) Inc., and is identified by
the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 The Final Office Action indicates claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn. Final
Act. 1.
Appeal2018-000333
Application 14/568,833
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates generally to corrosion protection
for plasma gun nozzles. Spec. ,r,r 4--6. 3 Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A nozzle for a thermal spray gun comprising:
a nozzle body having a central bore and an exterior surface
structured for insertion into a thermal spray gun; and
a water coolable surface coating applied onto at least a
portion of the exterior surface,
wherein the water coolable surface coating is structured to
protect the exterior surface from a chemical interaction with
cooling water guided through the thermal spray gun.
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--13, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Hanus (US 2007/0084834 Al, published Apr.
19, 2007). Final Act. 2---6.
II. Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hanus and Freund (EP O 194634 A2, published Sept. 17,
1986). Final Act. 6-7.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues claim 1 requires a water coolable surface coating
positioned so that it is in contact with cooling water guided through the
thermal spray gun, and that Hanus' corrosive-resistant coating is not
positioned to be in contact with cooling water. See Appeal Br. 9-15.
Therefore, argues Appellant, Hanus does not anticipate claim 1. Id. at 15.
3 Citations to the Specification are to the Substitute Specification filed
December 12, 2014, as further amended November 3, 2015.
2
Appeal2018-000333
Application 14/568,833
We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Hanus do not show
anticipation of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites "a water coolable surface coating applied onto at least
a portion of the exterior surface" of the nozzle body. The exterior surface of
the nozzle body does not include the central bore, which is recited
separately. As claim 1 recites, "the water coolable surface coating is
structured to protect the exterior surface from a chemical interaction with
cooling water guided through the thermal spray gun." The Specification
teaches that "water cooling system 4 is arranged to cool the exterior of
nozzle 2 with circulating water." Spec. ,r 31. Figure 1 shows that the
surfaces cooled with water are the exterior surfaces opposite the inner bore.
"In embodiments, surfaces of nozzle 2, and preferably all surfaces of nozzle
2, that are to be exposed to the cooling water are plated to protect the copper
material from chemical interaction with the cooling water." Id. ,r 35.
Although descriptions of embodiments are not limitations that should be
read into the claims, we look to the description to interpret the terms of the
claim. In light of the language of claim 1 and the description in the
Specification noted above, we interpret the phrase "structured to protect the
exterior surface from a chemical interaction with cooling water," as recited
in claim 1, to require that the coating be included on at least a portion of the
surface that is to be exposed to cooling water guided through the thermal
spray gun.
The Examiner finds "Hanus explicitly discloses an anti-corrosive
covering on substantial portion of the nozzle (54 insert, Para. 0042) and a
cooling water passageway ( 44) is formed with the exterior surface (58 outer
tubular wall) of the nozzle (54) in conjunction with the bore (48, Para.
3
Appeal2018-000333
Application 14/568,833
0039)." Ans. 8. The Examiner finds from these two separate disclosures
that "Hanus explicitly discloses the exterior surface (58) of the nozzle (54)
comprises a water coolable surface coating or a water cooling system (anti-
corrosive covering)." Id. Appellant acknowledges that Hanus' cooling
water contacts outer wall 58, but argues that none of the surfaces taught by
Hanus to be covered with an anti-corrosive covering are contacted by
cooling water. Appeal Br. 10-12. Instead, Appellant contends, Hanus seeks
to protect portions of the nozzle exposed to the plasma, i.e., the front face of
the gun or within the bore. Id. at 12. For the reasons given below, we agree
with Appellant.
Hanus describes a prior art collimator assembly (Fig. 3) and an
improved collimator (Fig. 4) that eliminates the welded joint on the
collimator's face. Hanus ,r,r 38, 41, Figs. 3--4. In the prior art collimator,
"face surfaces 52 and 64 of the holder member and the insert, respectively,
will lose material due to corrosion and erosion due to secondary arc strikes."
Id. ,r 40. Face surfaces 52 and 64 are on an end of the collimator facing the
workpiece. See id., Fig. 3. Hanus teaches that the weld between face
surfaces 52 and 64 is particularly vulnerable to corrosion and erosion, and
that the weld may be eliminated by extending the flange on insert member
54 to comprise the entire exposed face. Id. ,r,r 40--41. In addition, or in the
alternative, "by providing an anti-corrosive covering on the exposed face
surfaces and substantial portion of the inner exit bores of the holder member
and the insert, the useful life of the collimator can be extended." Id. ,r 42.
More specifically, "the exposed face surfaces 64 and 52 of the design of
FIG. 3 and 64' in the design of FIG. 4 has a relatively thin, corrosive-
resistant coating applied thereto." Id. ,r 43. Specifically regarding the exit
4
Appeal2018-000333
Application 14/568,833
bore, Hanus teaches "covering ... [a] substantial portion of the inner exit
bore of the copper collimating nozzle with a cladding layer of a
predetermined thickness." Id. ,r 46.
As to cooling water, Hanus teaches that cooling water runs through a
passageway that contacts the outer walls of the nozzle (insert 54). Id. ,r 39,
Fig. 3. The Examiner has not persuasively explained how Hanus teaches
plating or cladding the surface of the nozzle that forms the passageway for
the cooling water. There is also no indication that cooling water contacts
face surfaces 52 or 64, or the inner exit bore of the nozzle. Thus, the
evidence cited in the record does not show that Hanus' anti-corrosive
coating is included on at least a portion of the nozzle surface that is to be
exposed to cooling water guided through the thermal spray gun.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Hanus.
Claim 12 similarly recites "a coating applied to at least portions of the
exterior surface," and "a water cooling system structured and arranged to
guide cooling water onto the at least portions of the exterior surface." Thus,
claim 12 expressly recites that the cooling water is guided onto the same
portions of the exterior surface to which the coating is applied, and, like
claim 1, "the coating is structured to protect the exterior surface from a
chemical interaction with cooling water." Accordingly, for the same reasons
as claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12. The
5
Appeal2018-000333
Application 14/568,833
rejections of dependent claims 2-11 and 13-18 rely on the same
unsupported findings discussed herein and are in error for the same reasons. 4
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18.
REVERSED
4 Although claims 3 and 14 are rejected as obvious under§ 103, rather than
anticipated, the Examiner does not make findings to cure the deficiencies as
to the independent claims.
6