Ex Parte Murphy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

13999608 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/999,608 03/12/2014
8840 7590 07/31/2018
ARCONIC INC.
C/0 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
500 CAMPUS DRIVE
SUITE400
FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth S. Murphy
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.
176971.103769 9227
EXAMINER
BURKHART, ELIZABETH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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):
gtipmail@ gtlaw .com
clairt@gtlaw.com
cadanoc@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH S. MURPHY, WILLIAM C. BASTA,
and VINCENT J. RUSSO
Appeal2017-008387
Application 13/999,608
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., and
JANEE. INGLESE, 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 1-3, 5-8 and 12-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim an aluminizing mask for a region of a
superalloy component. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A mask for preventing aluminizing of a
region of a component made of a superalloy, comprising a
mixture of chromium-containing powder, nickel-containing
powder and refractory powder wherein the chromium-
containing powder comprises metallic chromium powder or
Appeal2017-008387
Application 13/999,608
chromium-containing metal alloy powder, the chromium-
containing powder being present in the mixture in an amount
greater than about 10 weight% effective (a) to supply
chromium to form a chromium-enriched surface on the
superalloy component beneath the mask during aluminizing of
an unmasked region or (b) to supply chromium to a pre-existing
chromium-enriched chromized surface on the superalloy
component beneath the mask to retain the chromium-enriched
chromized surface during aluminizing of an unmasked region.
Baldi
Tolpygo
Bettridge
The References
us 4,820,362
US 2010/0124670 Al
GB 2 401117 A
The Rejections
Apr. 11, 1989
May 20, 2010
Nov. 3, 2004
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
3, 5-8 and 12-20 over Bettridge in view of Baldi and claim 21 over
Bettridge in view of Baldi and Tolpygo.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims (1 and 7). Claim 1 requires a mask comprising a mixture containing
1) at least 10 wt% metallic chromium powder or chromium-containing metal
alloy powder, 2) nickel-containing powder, and 3) refractory powder.
Claim 7 requires a mask comprising an outer mask on an inner mask, the
inner mask comprising metallic chromium powder or chromium-containing
metal alloy powder and the outer mask comprising a mixture of 1) metallic
chromium powder or chromium-containing metal alloy powder,
2) nickel-containing powder, and 3) refractory powder. Claim 1 'sat least
10 wt% metallic chromium powder or chromium-containing metal alloy
powder and the collective amount of claim 7 's chromium in the inner and
2
Appeal2017-008387
Application 13/999,608
outer masks are effective to either (a) supply chromium to form a
chromium-enriched surface on a superalloy component beneath the mask
during aluminizing of an unmasked region of the superalloy component, or
(b) supply chromium to a preexisting chromium-enriched chromizing
surface on a superalloy component beneath the mask to retain the
chromium-enriched chromized surface during aluminizing of an unmasked
region of the superalloy component.
Bettridge applies a chromizing composition to a selected area of a
superalloy substrate, covers the chromizing composition with an aluminizing
mask, and aluminizes the unmasked area (p. 2, 11.12-17; col. 4, 11. 1-3;
col. 7, 11. 32-35). The chromizing composition preferably comprises 40 to
60 wt% chromium powder, 0.05-1 wt% ammonium chloride activator, and
the balance alumina powder (p. 2, 11. 26-28). The mask can comprise
powdered nickel, nickel oxide or nickel alloy and a refractory powder (p. 7,
11. 26-31 ). During aluminizing of the unmasked area, the chromizing
composition forms a chromium enriched zone at the selected area (p. 3,
11. 4--15).
Baldi discloses chromizing and aluminizing masks, and teaches that
"[t]he presence of as much as 20% chromium in a chromium-nickel-iron or
chromium-iron masking metal mixture [ for masking a chromium-containing
steel workpiece] will not prevent it from adequately masking against
chromizing" (col. 10, 11. 10-20, 29, 30). For masking against aluminizing,
the exemplified chromium-nickel-iron mixture is 12.9 % chromium,
8.6 % nickel, 7.1 % iron and 71.4% alumina (col. 10, 11. 29-37). Baldi also
discloses a chromium-containing steel workpiece aluminizing mask having a
workpiece-contacting essentially inert layer ( alumina particles), a masking
3
Appeal2017-008387
Application 13/999,608
layer (particles ofNbAl (50 wt%), Cr (5 wt%) and alumina (45 wt%)), and
an outermost sheath-forming layer (particles of Ni, NbAl and alumina)
(col. 17, 11. 1-5; col. 17, 1. 64- col. 18, 1. 27) wherein "[t]he presence of
about Yz to about 5% chromium metal in the essentially inert layer or in the
layer above it, contributes a strong [ masked workpiece chromium]
depletion-reducing effect" (col. 16, 11. 58---65; col. 17, 11. 55-58).
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).
The Examiner finds that "[a]lthough [Baldi's] Example VI discloses
using 5% Cr ( Col. 18, lines 14-15) for reducing depletion of chromium from
the surface of the superalloy ( Col. 18, lines 60-65), Baldi broadly discloses
that masking compositions may contain up to 20% chromium powder when
applied to a surface containing a level of chromium which should not be
depleted (Col. 10, lines 10-15)" (Ans. 6).
Baldi discloses that the presence of up to 20 % chromium in a
chromium-nickel-iron or chromium-iron masking metal mixture will not
prevent it from adequately masking against chromizing ( col. 10, 11. 15-18).
The Examiner does not establish that this disclosure applies to Baldi' s
iron-free masking composition ( col. 18, 11. 9-1 7). Nor does the Examiner
establish that Baldi's iron-containing aluminizing mask, which appears to
anticipate the composition the Appellants' claim 1 and contains chromium
that serves to reduce masked surface chromium depletion ( col. 10, 11. 10-15,
29-37), can provide the chromium-enriched surface formation or retention
required by that claim and the Appellants' claim 7.
4
Appeal2017-008387
Application 13/999,608
The Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to include chromium powder in a conventional
aluminizing mask as suggested by Baldi, either as an alternative to or in
addition to using an inner chromium containing mask as suggested by
Bettridge, in order to prevent or reduce depletion of chromium from the
superalloy surface while providing the additional benefit of using an amount
of chromium effective to form a chromium-enriched surface for good
protection against corrosion" (Ans. 5---6).
Bettridge' s chromium composition forms a chromium-enriched zone
on the masked area (p. 3, 11. 11-15). The Examiner does not establish that
during aluminizing there is any chromium depletion from the masked area
on which the chromium-enriched zone is formed or that chromium added to
the aluminizing mask on the chromium-enriched zone would further increase
the chromium enrichment of the masked area beyond that provided by the
chromium-enriched zone. Nor does the Examiner establish that the applied
references would have suggested eliminating Bettridge' s chromizing
composition or that the chromium in Baldi's aluminizing mask would
provide Bettridge' s substrate with the chromium enrichment or retention
required by the Appellants' claims 1 and 7.
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth the required apparent reason why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Bettridge and Baldi to
arrive at the Appellants' claimed mask. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejections.
5
Appeal2017-008387
Application 13/999,608
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 5-8 and 12-20
over Bettridge in view of Baldi and claim 21 over Bettridge in view of Baldi
and Tolpygo are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6