Ex Parte Heinrich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2013

10835264 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER HEINRICH, HEINRICH KREYE, and
THORSTEN STOLTENHOFF
____________________

Appeal 2011-007775
Application 10/835,264
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007775
Application 10/835,264

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter Heinrich et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-16, 21-24, 26, 28, 29, and 32. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed generally to “a Laval nozzle for
thermal spraying and kinetic spraying, especially for cold gas spraying, with
a convergent section and with a divergent section.” Spec. 1. Claims 1, 24,
and 32 are independent and claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A coating method comprising spraying a jet
of gas carrying particulate material by cold gas
spraying or by high speed flame spraying through
an outlet of a Laval nozzle onto a work piece to
form a coating thereon, said Laval nozzle
comprising a converging section and a diverging
section, at a gas temperature of not more than
800°C and below the melting temperature of the
particulate material and through a Laval nozzle
that is devoid of abrupt transitions, which would
disrupt the uniformity of the gas flow, and wherein
the divergent section has a sufficient extent of
continuously curving concave walls to provide an
increase in the percentage of particles that affix to
the work piece compared to the use of a cone-
shaped divergent section, and so as to provide a jet
at the outlet having a velocity of a Mach number
between 2.5 and 5.

Appeal 2011-007775
Application 10/835,264

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Prasthofer
Alkhimov
US 4,300,723
US 5,302,414
Nov. 17, 1981
Apr. 12, 1994

THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 21-24, 26, 28, 29, and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alkhimov and Prasthofer. Ans.
4.
ANALYSIS
Each of the methods of claims 1, 24, and 32 requires spraying through
“a Laval nozzle that is devoid of abrupt transitions … so as to provide a jet
at the outlet having a velocity of a Mach number between 2.5 and 5.” The
Examiner finds that Alkhimov teaches all of the pertinent recitations of
claim 1, except the Laval nozzle that is devoid of abrupt transitions. Ans. 4-
5. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious “to
perform the teachings of Alkhimov et al.’s invention and replace his nozzle
with the Laval nozzle of the device of Prasthofer in order to reduce
overspray as taught by Prasthofer.” Ans. 5.
As Appellants argue, however, “Prasthofer and Alkhimov teach
different devices to solve different problems.” App. Br. 3. While they are
both spray nozzles, Prasthofer’s nozzle “is specifically taught to be utilized
for a highly specific objective, i.e., to provide a coating for reusable solid
rocket boosters.” App. Br. 3. Appellants further point out that “[n]othing in
the disclosure of Prasthofer suggests that this overspray nozzle could be used
Appeal 2011-007775
Application 10/835,264

4
to replace a nozzle in a different system, as it is merely an attachment useful
at the ends of conventional spray guns.” App. Br. 4. Appellants also argue
that “it is well known that a subsonic jet passing through the divergent
portion of a convergent divergent nozzle will decrease in speed while a
supersonic jet passing through the divergent portion of a convergent
divergent nozzle will increase in speed.” App. Br. 5. Thus, “[a]s the nozzle
described in Prasthofer is designed for a subsonic flow without the
properties described in … Alkhimov and with a different composition to the
jet itself, one skilled in the art would not have a reason to combine the
nozzles.” Id. Further, as Appellants argue, Prasthofer “differentiates itself
from nozzles like that in Alkhimov[] when it states that its nozzle is not
suitable for replacing a nozzle on spray equipment but is instead meant to be
used as an adapter.” Reply. Br. 1 (citing Prasthofer col. 2, ll. 9-11 and 59-
61).
The Examiner’s response is that “[j]ust because the nozzle of
Prasthofer is designed for subsonic speeds, does not mean that it would not
work in a supersonic environment.” Ans. 11. The Examiner, however,
provides no support for this proposition and merely states that Prasthofer
would work in a supersonic environment because Prasthofer does not
“disclose that his nozzle would not work in a supersonic environment.” Id.
Further, the Examiner provides no support for the proposition that
Prasthofer’s overspray attachment to a conventional nozzle could operate as
a nozzle alone. As exemplified above, Appellants make a convincing
argument that the nozzle of Prasthofer would not operate with the device of
Alkhimov and are correct in noting that “[t]he Examiner has cited no
reference teaching one skilled in the art that nozzles designed for subsonic
Appeal 2011-007775
Application 10/835,264

5
speeds should or could be used where speed of the material passing through
them is at [M]ach 2.5 to [M]ach 5.” Reply Br. 2. We determine that, absent
such a finding with supporting evidence, the Examiner’s rejection is
improper. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of the claims over
the combination of Alkhimov and Prasthofer as stated by the Examiner.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1-5, 7-16, 21-24, 26, 28, 29, and 32.

REVERSED

Klh