Ex Parte Kottilingam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2018

13042625 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2018)

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.
13/042,625 03/08/2011 Srikanth Chandrudu KOTTILINGAM 242600/22113-0029 7285
13152 7590 03/15/2018
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
EXAMINER
ROSARIO-APONTE, ALBA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2018 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 SRIKANTH CHANDRUDU KOTTILINGAM,
GENE MURPHY, and YAN CUI
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,6251
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Srikanth Chandrudu Kottilingam et al. (“Appellants”) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated June 2, 2015 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1 and 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “relates [to] beam-brazed components
and processes of fabricating beam-brazed components.” Spec. 11. Claim 1,
the sole independent claim, is reproduced below with bracketed letters added
to identify each clause:
1. A method of fabricating a component,
comprising:
[a] beam brazing a pre-sintered preform or a
flexible tape to the component to form a beam-
brazed portion;
[b] wherein the beam brazing is performed by
a defocused electron beam.
REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cui (US 2011/0076151 Al, published Mar. 31, 2011) and
Antieau (US 5,986,233, issued Nov. 16, 1999).
2. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reeves (US 5,561,827, issued Oct. 1, 1996) and Antieau.
3. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cui, Antieau, and Sathian (US 2007/0154338 Al,
published July 5, 2007).
4. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reeves, Antieau, and Sathian.
2
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 — The rejection of claim 1
based on Cui and Antieau
For this Rejection, the Examiner found that Cui teaches the preamble
and clause a of claim 1, but stated, “[although Cui discloses preheating the
preform with a defocused beam ([|] 0048), it does not disclose wherein the
beam brazing is performed by a defocused electron beam” as recited in
clause b. Final Act. 2. The Examiner found, however, that “Antieau teaches
a beam brazing method wherein the beam brazing is performed by a
defocused electron beam.” Id. (citing Antieau, col. 3,11. 15—25). According
to the Examiner, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention “to modify Cui to perform beam brazing
using a defocused beam as disclosed by Antieau for temperature control
purposes.” Id.
First, Appellants argue that “Antieau fails to disclose beam-brazing.”
Br. 3. According to Appellants, “beam brazing is a term of art familiar to
those of ordinary skill in the art” that “refers to a brazing process where a
beam (such as an electron beam or a laser beam) is applied to a braze
material and heats the braze material using radiative energy (i.e., the energy
of the beam itself).” Id. (citing Cui Tflf 36, 37). Appellants argue that
“Antieau does not disclose a beam interacting with the braze material to
radiatively heat the braze material and join two articles” and thus “does not
disclose or suggest a beam brazing process at all. Rather, Antieau discloses
an alternative to a beam brazing process using a focused electron beam to
heat a susceptor, which heated susceptor brazes two articles with conducted
heat.” Id. 5.
3
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
We do not agree with Appellants that “beam brazing,” in the context
of claim 1, is limited to processes in which, as phrased by Appellants, a
beam “is applied to a braze material and heats the braze material using
radiative energy (i.e., the energy of the beam itself).” Br. 3. The
Specification indicates that “beam brazing” includes processes in which a
beam heats material other than the braze material, with that energy then
being conducted to the braze material, such that brazing occurs. See Ans. 5
(stating that “the plain meaning of the words chosen by the applicant in his
claim (‘beam brazing a pre-sintered preform or a flexible tape to the
component. . . ’ (claim 1, line 2)), when viewed by their plain meaning
under the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not require that the beam
directly contact the braze material”). For example, the Specification
describes the use of a beam to heat “the component or the portion of the
component to be beam-brazed (for example, the interlocking feature 110)”
rather than directly heating the braze material in, for example, preform 402.
Spec. 120 (also disclosing that, “[i]n one embodiment, the portion of the
component to be beam-brazed is heated to a predetermined temperature, for
example, between about 2100° F and about 2225° F”), 126 (“A portion of
the component is locally heated by the beam at a predetermined rate (for
example, about 250° F per minute) by a defocused electron beam . . . .”); see
also id. 125 (“Method step 210 [in Figure 3] includes beam brazing the
component or the portion of the component (for example, beam brazing the
preform 402 to the mating surface 114).”).
Here, Appellants and the Examiner do not disagree on the relevant
teachings of Antieau. As noted by Appellants, in Antieau, the electron beam
“is focused on a susceptor ring 8 adjacent to the region to be brazed.” Br. 4
4
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
(discussing Antieau, Fig. 1); see also Antieau, col. 3,11. 18—20 (“An electron
beam 14 produced by the electron beam gun 12 strikes the upper surface 8a
of the susceptor ring 8.”). Figure 1 of Antieau is reproduced below:
FIG. I
Figure 1 depicts an “electron beam susceptor heating arrangement.”
Antieau, col. 2,11. 11—12. As further noted by Appellants, “[t]he susceptor
[ring] converts the electron beam to heat, which is then distributed to the
adjacent portion region including the braze”—i.e., brazing alloy 6 as shown
in Figure 1. Br. 5; see also Antieau, col. 3,11. 44-46 (“In operation, the
electron beam 14 heats the susceptor ring 8. Heat from the susceptor ring is
transferred to the inner shield 4 and then to the brazing alloy 6.”).
With this understanding, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s finding that “beam brazing” in claim 1 includes the process
described in Antieau, in which “the electron beam 14 heats the susceptor ring
8” and the “[h]eat from the susceptor ring is transferred to . . . the brazing
alloy 6.” Antieau, col. 3,11. 44-46. As noted by the Examiner, Antieau
refers to the process described therein as “beam brazing.” See Ans. 5 (citing
Antieau, Title); see also Antieau, col. 1,11. 44-46 (stating that “there is
5
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
provided an electron beam brazing apparatus for brazing components
together with a brazing metal”).
To the extent argued, we do not agree with Appellants that Antieau
teaches away from using a beam to directly heat a braze material as taught,
for example, in Cui. See Br. 5 (“Antieau specifically confirms that the
electron beam disclosed in Antieau does not braze anything, and further, that
any such brazing by the electron beam would be undesirable.” (discussing
Antieau col. 3,11. 7—13)). Instead, as acknowledged by Appellants, Antieau
discloses “an alternative” to such a process. Br. 5; see In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[M]ere disclosure of alternative designs
does not teach away.”).
Second, Appellants argue that “Antieau does not disclose the
limitation of a defocused electron beam,” as recited in clause b of claim 1.
Br. 5. According to Appellants, in the Specification and claims, the term
“‘defocused’ is used as an adjective, describing a condition of the electron
beam.” Id. Appellants argue that:
The qualities of... a defocused electron beam are illustrated in
FIG. 8 of Cui, which shows an energy beam 74 coming into focus
at a focal point 84, and then coming out of focus (i.e., being a
defocused beam) where the energy beam 74 contacts the filling
material 70.
Id. at 5—6. According to Appellants, the Specification “describes that ‘the
defocused electron beam is formed by having increased deflection in
comparison to a focused beam that may be used for electron beam
welding.’” Id. at 6 (quoting Spec. 126). Thus, Appellants propose to
construe “defocused electron beam” as “an electron beam which contacts a
target out of focus (i.e., not at the focal point).” Id. Appellants argue that, in
Antieau, “defocused” is used as “a verb, describing an action performed on
6
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
the electron beam.” Id. According to Appellants, “‘defocused,’ as used in
Antieau, can be interpreted in two different ways.” Id. at 6—7. “One
interpretation (based on ‘[t]he electron beam 14 is defocused when it strikes
the susceptor ring 8’) is that ‘defocused’ refers to the results of the electron
beam contacting the susceptor surface, which would result in at least a
portion of the electrons scattering.” Id. at 7 (quoting Antieau, col. 3,11. 20—
21). Appellants argue that this “scattering” “is not a condition of the beam
itself, but rather is the result of the destruction of the beam, and is therefore
not relevant to the usage of ‘defocused electron beam’ in the present claim.”
Id. Appellants state that “[a] second interpretation (based on ‘[djefocusing
is achieved by rastering the electron beam 14 across the surface of the
susceptor ring 8a or by using spot patterns to reduce the energy density’) is
that ‘defocused’ refers not to a quality of the beam itself, but rather describes
movement of the beam.” Id. (quoting Antieau, col. 3,11. 21—24). According
to Appellants, one of skill in the art would understand the disclosed
“rastering” process “to indicate directing a focused beam across a surface in
a manner reminiscent of the scanning of a cathode ray television.” Id.
Appellants contend that this, however, “is not a defocused electron beam,
but rather is merely diffusing the effect of the electron beam through a rapid
scan pattern.” Id.
We do not agree with Appellants that “defocused electron beam,” in
the context of claim 1, is limited in the manner proposed. The Specification
describes two exemplary “defocused electron beam[s].” In one example, the
“defocused electron beam” is provided by a “beam being selectively
positioned or oscillated to spread heat over a predetermined region of the
combustion turbine component 100” and in which “[t]he predetermined
7
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
region may be defined by a predetermined path ... on the portion of the
component.” Spec. 126. The Specification discloses that, “[i]n one
embodiment, the defocused electron beam provides substantially uniform
heating of the predetermined region.” Id.
After this description, the Specification provides: “Additionally or
alternatively, in one embodiment, the defocused electron beam is formed by
having increased deflection in comparison to a focused beam that may be
used for electron beam welding.” Id. (emphasis added). Although as argued
by Appellants (Br. 5—6), this discussion indicates that a “defocused electron
beam” includes a beam formed by “having increased deflection,” the phrase
“[additionally or alternatively” (shown in emphasis above) clearly indicates
that “defocused electron beam” is not limited to beams formed by that
process. As such, “defocused electron beam” includes beams provided by
the first exemplary embodiment—i.e., a “beam being selectively positioned
or oscillated to spread heat over a predetermined region of the combustion
turbine component 100.” Spec. 126.
We turn now to the relevant teachings of Antieau. The entirety of the
paragraph at issue—quoted in part by Appellants and cited in large part by
the Examiner (see Final Act. 2)—is reproduced below, with emphasis added
to the passages quoted by Appellants.
After the components are assembled, the assembly is
loaded into an electron beam weldbox (not shown) including an
electron beam gun 12. The electron beam gun 12 is aligned with
the centerline of the inner shield 4. An electron beam 14
produced by the electron beam gun 12 strikes the upper surface
8a of the susceptor ring 8. The electron beam 14 is defocused
when it strikes the susceptor ring 8. Defocusing is achieved by
rastering the electron beam 14 across the surface of the
susceptor ring 8a or by using spot patterns to reduce the energy
8
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
density. It is preferred that the electron beam 14 is rotated around
surface 8a with a rotation speed sufficiently high to maintain a
uniform temperature around the susceptor ring 8.
Antieau, col. 3,11. 15—28 (emphasis added).
For the finding that Antieau discloses a “defocused electron beam,”
the Examiner cited all but the last sentence of the above passage. See Final
Act. 2. We see no error in that finding. We determine that the beam
described in Antieau falls within the scope of “defocused electron beam” as
indicated by the Specification (as discussed above)—specifically, aligning
with one aspect of the first exemplary embodiment, in which the beam is
“oscillated to spread heat over a predetermined region of the combustion
turbine component 100.” Spec. 126.
Although the statement in Antieau that “[t]he electron beam 14 is
defocused when it strikes the susceptor ring 8” could be understood, out of
context, as indicating that striking the susceptor ring 8 causes the beam to
become “defocused,” the succeeding sentence undermines that
interpretation, clearly providing that “[djefocusing is achieved by rastering
the electron beam.” Antieau, col. 3,11. 20-24 (emphasis added).
Third, Appellants contend that “Antieau cannot be properly combined
with Cui.” Br. 8. Appellants argue that “Cui describes a method for closing
holes in buckets and nozzles generated during their casting” whereas, “[i]n
contrast, the susceptor brazing system of Antieau requires that a susceptor be
placed in contact with the full area of the articles to be brazed, and only a
ring-shaped susceptor is disclosed.” Id. (citing Cui 123). Appellants argue
that “[t]he Examiner has not provided any technical basis or reasoning for
how the susceptors of Antieau could practically be combined with Cui” and
9
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
that, “[i]n the absence of such an explanation, the Appellants have no basis
to believe that such a combination is possible or functional.” Id.
As an initial matter, this argument does not address the Rejection as
articulated—the Examiner does not propose utilizing susceptor ring 8 of
Antieau in the modified process of Cui/Antieau. See Final Act. 2. Instead,
the Examiner relies on Antieau for its use of a defocused electron beam. Id.
Moreover, we are not apprised of error based on the differences in Cui and
Antieau because Appellants have not shown that the differences identified
undermine the factual findings or reasoning relied on to support the
conclusion of obviousness. See id.', Ans. 5—6; see also KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“[FJamiliar items may have obvious
uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary
skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces
of a puzzle.”). And, Appellants have not shown that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not be able to overcome the differences within their
level of skill. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 based on Cui
and Antieau.
Rejection 2 — The rejection of claim 1
based on Reeves and Antieau
For this Rejection, the Examiner found that Reeves teaches the
preamble and clause a, but stated that “Reeves fails to disclose wherein the
beam brazing is performed by a defocused electron beam” as recited in
clause b. Final Act. 3 (citing Reeves, Fig. 3, abstract, col. 6,1. 52 — col. 7,
1. 7). The Examiner found, however, that “Antieau teaches a beam brazing
10
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
method wherein the beam brazing is performed by a defocused electron
beam.” Id. (citing Antieau, col. 3,11. 15—25). According to the Examiner, it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention “to modify Reeves to perform beam brazing using a defocused
beam as disclosed by Antieau for temperature control purposes.” Id.
As the first and second arguments for this Rejection, Appellants
present aspects of the first and second arguments discussed above regarding
Rejection 1—i.e., that Antieau fails to disclose “beam brazing” and fails to
disclose a “defocused electron beam.” Compare Br. 9-10 (Rejection 2),
with id. at 3—7 (Rejection 1). The Examiner relies on the same response.
See Ans. 7. For the same reasons discussed above, we are not apprised of
error based on these arguments.
Third, Appellants contend that “Antieau cannot be properly combined
with Reeves.” Br. 10. Appellants argue that “Reeves describes a method for
brazing a coating onto a substrate” whereas, “[i]n contrast, the susceptor
brazing system of Antieau requires that a susceptor be placed in contact with
the full area of the articles to be brazed, and only a ring-shaped susceptor is
disclosed.” Id. at 10-11 (citing Reeves col. 6,1. 65 — col. 7,1. 7).
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner has not provided any technical basis
or reasoning for how the susceptors of Antieau could practically be
combined with Reeves” and that, “[i]n the absence of such an explanation,
the Appellants have no basis to believe that such a combination is possible
or functional.” Id. at 11.
For the same reasons discussed above regarding the third argument
addressing Rejection 1, we are not apprised of error based on this argument.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 based on Reeves and Antieau.
11
Appeal 2016-002611
Application 13/042,625
Rejection 3 — The rejection of claim 2
based on Cui, Antieau, and Sathian
For this Rejection, Appellants argue that claim 2 is allowable based on
its dependence from claim 1. See Br. 11 (addressing “Ground 3”). For the
reasons discussed above, we are not apprised of error in the Rejection of
claim 1 based on Cui and Antieau. See supra Rejection 1. As such, we
sustain this Rejection of claim 2.
Rejection 4 — The rejection of claim 2
based on Reeves, Antieau, and Sathian
For this Rejection, Appellants argue that claim 2 is allowable based on
its dependence from claim 1. See Br. 11—12 (addressing “Ground 4”). For
the reasons discussed above, we are not apprised of error in the Rejection of
claim 1 based on Reeves and Antieau. See supra Rejection 2. As such, we
sustain this Rejection of claim 2.
DECISION
We affirm the decision to reject claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12