Ex Parte Mironets et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14721223 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/721,223 05/26/2015 Sergey Mironets
54549 7590 01/03/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
67097-1642PUS2 PA18711 2191
EXAMINER
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGEY MIRONETS, EDWARD F. PIETRASZKIEWICZ,
ALEXANDER STAROSELSKY, and MARK F. ZELESKY
Appeal2018-004685
Application 14/721,223
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-5 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Tholen (US 2008/0159850 Al, pub. July 3, 2008), Bosshart (US 4,481,237,
iss. Nov. 6, 1984), and Shi (US 2009/0028697 Al, pub. Jan. 29, 2009), and
of claims 7-9 and 14--17 over Tholen, Bosshart, Shi, and Liang (US
7,597,533 Bl, iss. Oct. 6, 2009). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 United Technologies Corporation is the Applicant and real-party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004685
Application 14/721,223
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a blade outer air seal (BOAS) for a
gas turbine engine. Spec. ,r,r 2--4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A Blade Outer Air Seal (BOAS) comprising:
a body including a face opposite a forward interface and an
aft interface, said face including a cavity;
a non-metallic insert within said cavity such that said non-
metallic insert is flush with said face; and
an intermediate bonding layer between said cavity and said
non-metallic insert, wherein the intermediate bonding layer is a
functionally graded material (FGM), and wherein the
intermediate bonding layer is 100% metal alloy adjacent the
cavity and 100% non-metal adjacent the non-metallic insert.
Claim 1
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-5
over Tholen, Bosshart, and Shi
The Examiner finds that Tholen discloses the invention except for an
FGM intermediate bonding layer. Final Action 3--4. The Examiner relies on
Bosshart as disclosing a BOAS with an intermediate bonding layer. Id. at 4.
The Examiner relies on Shi as disclosing the use of FGM to control thermal
stress in turbine components. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify the BOAS of Tholen with an intermediate bonding layer
as taught by Bosshart and further modified by using the FGM of Shi to
achieve the claimed invention. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have done this as it merely entails using
known techniques to improve similar devices. Id. at 5.
2
Appeal 2018-004685
Application 14/721,223
Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined the prior art in the manner proposed by the Examiner.
Appeal Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellants point out that Tholen features a
gap between its body and insert in lieu of an intermediate bonding layer. Id.
at 5. Appellants point out that such gap in Tholen is necessary to circulate
cooling airflow and, therefore, an artisan would not have been motivated to
fill such gap with a layer of material. Id.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that spacers 60 of Tholen
connect metallic body 3 O' to insert 31 '. Ans. 3. According to the Examiner,
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified such connection so
as to preserve the function of the design and allow cooling air flow between
the body and the insert. Id. The Examiner states that the rejection
contemplates joining the metallic and non-metallic components as taught by
Bosshart between the interactions of such two components. Id. As we
understand the Examiner's position, the intermediate bonding layer
limitation of claim 1 is satisfied by modifying Tholen's spacers 60 so as to
be comprised of FGM.
Tholen is directed to a replaceable BOAS. Tholen, Abstract. Tholen
teaches the following in regards to its Figure 4 embodiment relied on by the
Examiner.
FIG. 4 illustrates selected portions of another example
embodiment of the blade outer air seal system 28' wherein the
insert member 31' includes a body 3 8' and an attachment
section 46' that slidably secures to support 30'. In this example,
spacers 60 located between the insert member 31' and the
support 30' space the insert member 31' apart from the
support 30' such that there is a passage 62 therebetween. In one
example, the spacers 60 are integral with the insert member 31 '.
In the illustrated example, a coolant is conveyed through the
3
Appeal 2018-004685
Application 14/721,223
cooling passages 64 within the support 30' and through the
passage 62 to cool the insert member 31 '.
Id. ,r 24. Looking at Figure 4 of Tholen, it appears that spacers 60 are
relatively narrow and widely spaced apart in relation to passages 62 for
cooling airflow. Given the size of spacers 60 relative to passages 62 such
that spacers 60 are surrounded by cooling airflow, the Examiner has not
provided adequate evidence to show that spacers 60 are subject to thermal-
mechanical fatigue in the same manner or to the same degree as encountered
in the adjacent materials in Bosshart or Shi that would have motivated a
person of ordinary skill in the art to use FGM in spacers 60.
The existence of a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to
modify a prior art reference is a question of fact. See In re Constr. Equip.
Co., 665 F.3d 1254, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the instant case, the
Examiner's finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified Tholen in the manner proposed in the rejection is not supported by
a preponderance of evidence. Thus, the Examiner errs in concluding that the
subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner's unpatentability
rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-5
These claims depend from claim 1. Claims App. The Examiner's
rejection of these claims suffers from the same infirmity that was identified
above with respect to claim 1. Thus, for essentially the same reasons
expressed above in connection with claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 2-5.
4
Appeal 2018-004685
Application 14/721,223
Unpatentability of Claims 7-9 and 14-17
over Tholen, Bosshart, Shi, and Liang
Claim 7 is an independent claim, which, like claim 1, recites
limitations directed to an intermediate bonding layer of FGM between a
body cavity and non-metallic insert. Claims App. Claims 7-9, 14, and 17
depend from claim 7. Id. Claims 15 and 16 depend, directly or indirectly,
from claim 1. Id. As such, the Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers
from the same infirmity that was identified above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, for essentially the same reason expressed above in connection with
claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-9 and 14--17.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7-9, and 14--17 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5