Ex Parte Heutling et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201712988045 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/988,045 11/08/2010 Falko Heutling M078 P02141-US 7538 3017 7590 09/28/2017 BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. 101 DYER STREET 5TH FLOOR PROVIDENCE, RI 02903 EXAMINER KHAN, TAHSEEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1781 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2017 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 FALKO HEUTLING, THOMAS UIHLEIN and WOLFGANG EICHMANN ________________ Appeal 2017-000364 Application 12/988,045 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5–12 and 16–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim an erosion protection coating. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An erosion protection coating, in particular for gas turbine components, having a horizontally segmented and/or multi-layered construction comprising: Appeal 2017-000364 Application 12/988,045 2 a plurality of first layers each having a thickness between 0.5 μm and10 μm; each of the plurality of first layers consisting of a plurality of alternating sub-layers of CrAlN and CrN on top of one another; the top most sub- layer and the bottom most sub-layer being a CrN layer, each of the sub-layers having a thickness between 10 nm and 200 nm; each of the first layers being nanostructured in configuration; a plurality of second layers, each being of CrN, each having a thickness of 0.5 μm to 5 μm; the first layers being harder than the second layers; wherein the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers are disposed on top of one another in an alternating manner, in such a way that an outer-lying layer, that is farthest away from a gas turbine component receiving the coating and which forms an outer surface of the erosion protection coating, is one of the first layers. The References Nozaki US 2005/0047694 A1 Mar. 3, 2005 Coddet US 2008/0318069 A1 Dec. 25, 2008 Yasui1 WO 2007/083361 A1 July 26, 2007 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22 and 23 over Yasui in view of Nozaki and claims 6–9, 12, 18–21 and 24 over Yasui in view of Nozaki and Coddet. 1 Citations herein to Yasui are to US 2009/0123737 A1 (May 14, 2009) which the Examiner relies upon as an English language equivalent of WO 2007/083361 A1 (Ans. 2). Appeal 2017-000364 Application 12/988,045 3 OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent claims (1 and 16).2 Those claims require an erosion protection coating comprising 1) first layers having 10–200 nm thick CrN sublayers, and 2) second layers of 0.5–5 µm thick CrN. Yasui discloses a steam turbine erosion protection coating comprising alternating layers of CrN and AlCrN, each having a 10–100 nm thickness, the total layer thickness being 10 µm or more (¶¶ 2, 3, 7, 8, 39; Fig. 9). Nozaki discloses a gas turbine rolling bearing comprising, on its raceway and/or rolling surfaces, a nitride layer with a 3 µm or less thick CrN film thereon to make those surfaces less likely to smear, thereby extending the rolling bearing’s life (¶¶ 1, 2, 6, 7, 9). “While the chromium nitride film, which is hard and brittle, tends to suffer from cracks and chipping due e.g. to foreign matter that gets stuck in the bearing if used alone, by forming the chromium nitride film on the nitride layer formed as a base, it is possible to prevent such cracks and chipping” (¶ 7). The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the thickness of the CrN layers, of Yasui, by using a range of up to 5 [sic, 3] microns, as disclosed by Nozaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to not result in cracks and chippings” (Ans. 5), and “Nozaki’s explicit disclosure of using chromium nitride in turbines is enough of a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to 2 The Examiner does not rely upon Coddet for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Yasui and Nozaki as to the independent claims (Ans. 5–6). Appeal 2017-000364 Application 12/988,045 4 consider its contents and it would be obvious to do so in light of prolonging the life of it” (Ans. 8–9). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Nozaki discloses that “a chromium nitride film having a thickness exceeding 3 micrometers are [sic, is] more likely to suffer from cracks and chippings” (¶ 9). The Examiner does not establish that one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of that disclosure, would have had an apparent reason to increase the thickness of Yasui’s 10–100 nm (0.01–0.1 µm) thick CrN layers (¶ 39) to up to 3 µm “in order to not result in cracks and chippings” (Ans. 5). Regardless, the Appellants’ claims require a combination of 10–200 nm and 0.5–5 µm CrN layer thicknesses. The Examiner does not establish that Yasui and Nozaki would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to use CrN layers having that combination of thicknesses. Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed erosion protection coating. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22 and 23 over Yasui in view of Nozaki and claims 6–9, 12, 18–21 and 24 over Yasui in view of Nozaki and Coddet are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation