Ex Parte Ozbaysal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

14167159 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/167,159 01129/2014
28524 7590 04/25/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kazim Ozbaysal
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.
2013P05646US01 8528
EXAMINER
SCHLEIS, DANIEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZIM OZBAYSAL and AHMED KAMEL
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-19 in the above-identified application. 2 We
have authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Siemens Energy, Inc., which, according to the
Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1, May 9, 2016 (hereinafter
Appeal Br.).
2 Final Office Action, Feb. 9, 2016 (hereinafter Final Action); Examiner's
Answer, Jan. 13, 2017 (hereinafter Answer); see also Appeal Br.; Reply
Brief, Feb. 20, 2017 (hereinafter Reply Br.).
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to "a braze material useful for the repair
or joining of nickel base superalloy components." Spec. 3 1:8-9. Because
high strength braze materials for repairing superalloy materials "may be
difficult to fabricate as a foil because of their strength and brittleness," the
invention forms the braze material "as a sandwich of three layers ...
wherein each of the layers has a ductility sufficient to facilitate being
fabricated as a foil." Id. at 2: 13-20. For example, the Specification teaches
that one may create a near-eutectic brazing alloy (such as the NiTiCr alloy
disclosed in US 8,640,942 B 1) by forming a sandwich of pure titanium
surrounded on both sides by a NiCr alloy (18-22% Cr, balance Ni). See id.
at 2:20-27. The sandwich structure is "more easily fabricated as a foil than
the near eutectic alloy," and "exhibits the desired composition upon
melting." Id. at 2:24--30.
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A braze foil comprising:
top and bottom layers each comprising a chrome-nickel
alloy; and
a middle layer of pure metal disposed between the top
and bottom layers.
Appeal Br. 20. Claim 9, the only other independent claim, reads as follows:
9. A braze foil comprising:
a layer of chrome-nickel alloy; and
a layer of a pure metal disposed against the layer of
chrome-nickel alloy, wherein the pure metal is selected from the
group of titanium, hafnium and zirconium.
Id. at 21.
3 Specification, Jan. 29, 2014 [hereinafter Spec.].
2
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jha. 4 See Final Action 4--6. On
the same basis, the Examiner also rejects claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 in further
view of Pohlman, 5 id. at 7-12, and claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 in further view of
Keifert, 6 id. at 8-9.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-4, 9, and 11-14
Jha discloses a brazing composition comprising a layer of titanium
sandwiched between two outer nickel layers. Jha 3 :22-24, Fig. 4. The
nickel layers may be either "nickel or high nickel alloy," and the titanium
layer may be either "titanium or high titanium alloy." Id. at 2:7-9. During
brazing, this composite layer "is then heated to react the nickel and titanium
materials in the braze layer in situ to form the lower melting point braze
alloy." Id. at 3:41--44.
The Examiner finds that Jha teaches the overall sandwich structure
recited in claim 1. See Final Action 10-11; see also Answer 9. 7 The
4 Jha et al., US 5,553,770 (issued Sept. 10, 1996).
5 Pohlman, US 7,527,187 B2 (issued May 5, 2009).
6 Keifert, US 4,291,104 (issued Sept. 22, 1981).
7 Appellant argues that the Examiner changed the rejection after initially
finding that layers 10 and 12 of Jha's Figures 2 and 3 correspond to the
layers recited in claims 1 and 9. See Appeal Br. 3--4, 14. Whether or not this
accurately characterizes the Final Action, Appellant does not dispute that the
Examiner has separately relied on the embodiment shown in Jha's Figure 4.
See Final Action 4--5, 10; see also Advisory Action 3, Mar. 21, 2016
(hereinafter Advisory Action) (relying on the embodiment in Figure 4
combined with Jha's overall teachings).
3
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
Examiner notes that according to Jha, the nickel layers need not be pure
nickel, but may be a nickel alloy. Final Action 11 (citing Jha 2:7-13);
Answer 10 (citing Jha 5:47---6:9). In addition, on page 9 of the Answer the
Examiner points to Jha's disclosure that "[i]t is to be understood that other
elements can be added to the nickel .... Such elements principally include
chromium and iron typically in the amounts of 7-20 wt. percent and 3-5 wt.
percent respectively." Jha 4: 11-19. In light of this teaching, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to modify the nickel layer in Jha
by using a chrome-nickel alloy. See Answer 10.
According to Appellant, Jha teaches that the outer layers "are merely
'nickel' layers," and that in a specific example, the layers are "pure" nickel.
Appeal Br. 5 (citing Jha 3:24, 4:33-34). Appellant argues that the disclosure
of alloys with both nickel and chromium have to do with the two-layer
embodiment disclosed in Jha's Figure 5, not the separate three-layer
embodiment in Figure 4. See id.; see also Reply Br. 4. According to
Appellant, the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning or justification
to combine the teachings of these two embodiments. See id. at 6.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error. "All of
the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach
one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965(CCPA1966).
Jha teaches that the outer nickel layers may be a nickel alloy, not necessarily
pure nickel. Jha 2:7-9, 5:48--49. Though not directly in the context of the
same embodiment, Jha also teaches that chromium is among the suitable
elements for adding to nickel in order to achieve an alloy that is easily
formable, yet will melt at an acceptable brazing temperature. See id. at
4: 11-19. In light of Jha's broader teachings, a preponderance of the
4
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
evidence shows that a skilled artisan would have had reason to select
chromium as part of the composition of the nickel outer layers disclosed in
Jha's Figure 4.
Appellant also argues that the embodiment in which Jha mentions
adding chromium includes a boronizing step, and is therefore inconsistent
with the embodiment in Jha's Figure 4. Reply Br. 2-3. This argument is
unpersuasive of reversible error. The Examiner cites this embodiment for its
teaching about adding chromium; the rejection does not require the entire
embodiment to be bodily incorporated into Figure 4. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425(CCPA1981) ("The test for obviousness is ... what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.").
In addition, even if a skilled artisan would have understood to use
chromium only in the presence of a boronizing step, claim 1 does not
exclude the presence of boron in the recited "chrome-nickel alloy" of the top
and bottom layers. Claim 18, which depends from claim 1, recites, "wherein
the top and bottom layers exclude boron." Appeal Br. 22. Consistent with
the principle of claim differentiation, the broadest reasonable interpretation
of "chrome-nickel alloy" in claim 1 does not exclude other elements such as
boron. See Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1277 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) ("Consistent with the claim differentiation doctrine, the term
'light housing' in claim 1 is broader in scope than in claim 3 and the other
dependent claims"); United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 783-84
(Fed. Cir. 1988); D.MI., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir.
1985) ("Where some claims are broad and others narrow, the narrow claim
5
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
limitations cannot be read into the broad." (quoting Deer & Co. v. Int 'l
Harvester Co., 658 F.2d 1137, 1141 (7th Cir. 1981))).
For the above reasons, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and we affirm the rejection.
Claims 2--4 depend from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 20. Appellant
presents arguments for claim 2 that are substantially the same as arguments
presented with respect to claim 1. See id. at 7-8. Appellant presents no
distinct arguments regarding claims 3 or 4. See id. at 16, 18. Therefore, we
affirm the rejections of claims 2--4 for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 9 is substantially the same as claim 1, except that claim 9 omits
one of the two outer chrome-nickel layers, and the pure metal is selected
from the group of titanium, hafnium, and zirconium. Compare Appeal Br.
21, with id. at 20. The Examiner's grounds for rejecting claim 9 are
substantially the same as for claim 1. See Final Action 4--5. Moreover,
Appellant's arguments regarding claim 9 are substantially the same as for
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14--15 (arguing, e.g., that the outer layers in Jha's
Figure 4 are pure nickel, and thus exclude chromium, and that Jha's
reference to chromium only occurs in a layer that is boronized). 8 Therefore,
we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 for the reasons discussed
above.
Claims 11-14 depend from claim 9. See Appeal Br. 21. Because
Appellant offers no distinct argument regarding claims 11-14, see Appeal
8 As discussed supra note 7, the Examiner relies separately on the
embodiment disclosed in Jha's Figure 4. Therefore, we need not address
Appellant's arguments regarding what, according to Appellant, was the
Examiner's original ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 14.
6
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
Br. 15-16, 18, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 11-14 for the
reasons discussed above.
Claims 5-7, and 15
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further recites, "wherein the top
and bottom layers each comprise an alloy having a composition of 5-22%
Cr- balance Ni." Appeal Br. 20. Claim 6 also depends from claim 1, and
further recites, "each of the top and bottom layers is 20% Cr - balance Ni;
and the middle layer is 100% Ti." Id. Claim 15 depends from claim 9, and
recites, "wherein the layer of chrome-nickel alloy has a composition of 5-
22% Cr- balance Ni." Id. at 21.
According to the Examiner, Jha teaches that "[t]he nickel alloy can
include 7 to 20 wt. percent chromium." Final Action 5 (citing Jha 6:43--45).
The Examiner also interprets claim 5 (and presumably claims 6 and 15) as
allowing additional elements in the alloy of the top and bottom layers,
because the claim is open-ended. See Answer 12-13. Alternatively, the
Examiner finds that Jha does not require that the nickel layer contain
elements other than nickel and chromium. Id. at 13.
Appellant argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word
"balance" in the claims means the "remainder." Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal
Br. 8-9. We agree. The Specification also supports this interpretation, as the
embodiments of the final brazing composition corresponding to claims 5, 6,
and 15 consist only of chromium, titanium, and nickel. See Spec. 2:24--27,
4:8-15. Thus, in light of the ordinary claim language and the Specification,
the Examiner's interpretation of claims 5, 6, and 15 is broader than the
broadest reasonable interpretation.
7
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
We also agree with Appellant's argument that Jha does not teach or
suggest an alloy that includes only nickel and chromium. See Appeal Br. 8-
9. In the embodiment that includes 7-20% chromium, Jha teaches that the
alloy also includes 3-5% iron. Jha 4: 17-19, 6:43--45. The Examiner has not
provided a rationale for why a skilled artisan would have omitted the iron
from this alloy at the time of the claimed invention.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 5, 6, and 15.
Because claim 7 depends from claim 6, and the Examiner's reliance on
Pohlman does not cure the above deficiencies, we also reverse the rejection
of claim 7.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and recites, "the top, middle and
bottom layers each have approximately equal thickness." Appeal Br. 22.
The Examiner finds that Jha "teaches that the thicknesses of the respective
layers can be equal." Final Action 7 (citing Jha 3:7-14). In addition, the
Examiner finds that "Pohlman teaches that the layers may be of uniform or
nonuniform thicknesses." Id. (citing Pohlman 5:22-27); see also Answer 17.
According to the Examiner, "[t]he actual individual layer thicknesses will
depend on the molecular weight and density of the elements in the individual
layer and the desired composition of the finished braze foil." Final Action
7-8 (citing Pohlman 5:27-32). Thus, "the thicknesses are selected such that
the composition of the finished braze foil has desired properties, including a
particular composition." Id. at 8; see also Answer 17. Therefore, the
Examiner determines that
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of
8
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
choosing thicknesses of the respective layers, including layers
that are uniform in thickness, such that it is possible to achieve
a desired composition in the final brazed foil product. By
selecting uniform thickness values for the respective layers, one
is able to select a particular composition for the foil.
Final Action 8.
Appellant argues9 that Jha only teaches that the outer layers can be of
equal thickness, but not that these layers are equally as thick as the middle
layer. See Appeal Br. 16. This argument is not persuasive of reversible
error, because the Examiner also relies on Pohlman for teaching that all the
layers may be of uniform thickness. See Final Action 7 (citing Pohlman
5 :22-27). While Appellant argues that "Pohlman fails to cure this
deficiency," Appellant does not support this argument with evidence or
technical reasoning. See Appeal Br. 16.
Pohlman teaches that "although the figures show layers of equal
thickness for illustrative purposes, the layers need not be of uniform
thickness." Pohlman 5 :25-27. This suggests that the layers may be of equal
thickness. Pohlman also supports the Examiner's determination that the
thickness of the individual layers is a function of the desired composition of
the finished braze foil. See id. at 5:27-32. The preponderance of the
evidence thus favors the conclusion that the relative thicknesses of the layers
is a result effective variable, and that achieving layers of equal thickness by
optimization was within the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
claimed invention. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295
(Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
9 In addressing the Examiner's rejection of claim 17, Appellant relies on
arguments for claim 7. See Appeal Br. 18.
9
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges
by routine experimentation." (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA
1955)).
Appellant also argues that a skilled artisan would not have combined
the teachings of Pohlman with Jha because the two references operate at
different thickness scales, and the modification "would involve a
fundamental change in the operation of the rolling mill" disclosed in Jha.
Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis omitted). This argument is not persuasive of
reversible error. The Examiner relies on Pohlman for the teaching that the
layers may be of uniform thickness, not for a particular rolling mill or its
method of operation. Final Action 7-8; Answer 16-17.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 17.
Claims 8 and 10
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites "a composition of
the top and bottom layers selected to form a near eutectic alloy at respective
interfaces with the middle layer." Appeal Br. 20. Claim 10, which depends
from claim 9, further recites "the chrome-nickel alloy having a composition
effective to form a near eutectic alloy at an interface with the layer of pure
metal." Id. at 21. 10 The Specification defines "near eutectic" as including
"any alloy having a melting temperature range of less than 25 °C." Spec.
3: 8-9. In one example, the Specification discloses that one may form a
"near eutectic alloy" when the braze foil is a layer of pure titanium
10 Appellant does not separately argue claim 10. See Appeal Br. 15.
Because Appellant's arguments regarding claim 8 are also applicable to
claim 10, we treat the two claims as a group.
10
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
surrounded by two nickel layers each alloyed with 18-22% chromium. Id.
at 2:24--27.
According to the Examiner, claim 8 requires the braze foil to "have
materials that must be able to form a near eutectic alloy at respective
interfaces with the middle layer," not necessarily "within the material."
Answer 13. The Examiner determines that "since Jha teaches materials that
appear to be identical to that taught within the instant application, it would
likewise be expected that the product of Jha would have the same properties
as those set forth in claim 8." Id. at 14. The Examiner also points out that
the layers of the three-layer structure disclosed in Jha's Figure 4 react when
heated to form a "lower melting point braze alloy," providing evidence that
"the material would include a near eutectic alloy at the interface." Final
Action 5. 11
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection incorrectly assumes
that claim 8 does not "require the presence of near eutectic alloy based on
the composition of the required top and bottom layers." Reply Br. 4. We
disagree with Appellant's characterization of the rejection. The Examiner
simply notes, correctly, that claim 8 only requires a composition selected
such that a near eutectic alloy forms at the interfaces between the middle and
outer layers, but not necessarily within the material as a whole. Thus,
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
11 According to Jha, when the three-layer structure is melted together and
then solidified, it forms a "lower melting point braze alloy," with a typical
brazing temperature of 2100 °F. Jha 3:42--47. In other words, the layers
melt to form a composition with a lower melting point at a specific brazing
temperature.
11
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
Appellant also argues that Jha, with regard to the embodiment in
Figure 4, "contains no discussion of the relative composition of nickel and
titanium within the outer layers ... , let alone whether they form a near
eutectic alloy at respective interfaces with the center layer." Appeal Br. 11
(emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that Jha' s teaching about adding
chromium to a nickel alloy only relates to Jha's Figure 5 embodiment
(which also includes silicon and boron), and not to the embodiment in Figure
4. Reply Br. 4.
Claim 8 recites a functional limitation: the ability of the top and
bottom layers to form a near eutectic alloy at the respective interfaces with
the middle layer. Merely reciting a new function or property of a previously
known composition does not impart patentability to that composition. In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Where, as here, a functional
limitation would be critical for establishing patentability, and the Examiner
has reason to believe that this functional limitation is inherent in the prior
art, the Examiner "possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove
that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the
characteristic relied on." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977)
(quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971)). Placing this
burden of proof on Appellant is fair because of "the PTO' s inability to
manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." Id.
As discussed above, the preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's determination that a skilled artisan would have had reason to
select chromium as part of the composition of the nickel outer layers
disclosed in Jha's Figure 4. A three-layer structure with pure titanium
surrounded by outer layers of nickel and some added chromium is
12
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
substantially the same as the exemplary "near eutectic alloy" disclosed in
Appellant's Specification. See Spec. 2. Because the composition of Jha's
Figure 4 embodiment, as modified by Jha's general teachings, is similar
enough to a known "near eutectic alloy" that one would reasonably expect
the alloy to have similar properties, Appellant has the burden to show that
the modified Jha structure would not necessarily or inherently form a near
eutectic alloy at the layer interfaces. See Best, 562 F.2d at 1255. Appellant
has not presented evidence to meet that burden, and has therefore failed to
show reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. For the above reasons, we
affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 10.
Claims 16 and 19
Claim 16 depends from claim 8 and further recites, "wherein the
composition of the top and bottom layers is such that the foil will begin to
melt at the interfaces and will progress into the layers." Appeal Br. 22.
Claim 19 depends from claim 10 and further recites, "wherein the
composition of the chrome-nickel alloy is such that the foil will begin to
melt at the interfaces and will progress into the layers." Id. 12
The Examiner finds that "Jha teaches a braze foil that has the identical
or substantially identical layers as set forth in the instant claims and the
specification of the instant application." Final Action 5. Thus, the Examiner
determines "it would be expected that the product would likewise have the
same properties, including that the top and bottom layers would be[gin] to
melt at the interfaces and will progress into the layers." Id. at 6. The
12 Appellant does not separately argue claim 19. See Appeal Br. 15.
Because Appellant's arguments regarding claim 16 are also applicable to
claim 19, we treat the two claims as a group.
13
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
Examiner also determines that claims 16 and 19 do not limit the melting
process, and thus do not significantly limit the scope of the compositions,
otherwise within the scope of the claim, that are capable of exhibiting the
recited melting behavior. See id.; see also Answer 15-16.
Appellant argues that the Examiner exercises impermissible hindsight
by citing the Specification in the Final Office Action and subsequent
Advisory Action. See Appeal Br. 12. We disagree. The Examiner cites the
Specification in order to compare the claims with the disclosure of Jha, or to
establish inherency-not to reconstruct what was obvious to a skilled artisan
at the time of the claimed invention. See Final Action 6; Advisory Action 6.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner mischaracterizes the outer
layers of Jha's Figure 4 embodiment as "chrome-nickel layers." Appeal Br.
12. This is not persuasive of reversible error because, as discussed above in
relation to claim 1, the Examiner has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that a skilled artisan would have had reason to add chromium to the
nickel layer of Jha's Figure 4 embodiment at the time of the claimed
invention.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's determination that claim 16
does not particularly limit the melting process improperly fails to give due
patentable weight to the melting property limitation in claim 16. Appeal Br.
12-13. We disagree. Although the Examiner determined that the limitation
does not particularly limit the subject matter of the claim, the Examiner
nevertheless considered the limitation and provided a rationale for why the
modified structure in Jha is likely to have the properties recited in claims 16
and 19. See Final Action 5---6. Thus, Appellant has the burden to show that
the top and bottom layers of the modified Jha structure would not necessarily
14
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
or inherently begin to melt at the interfaces and progress into the layers. See
Best, 562 F.2d at 1255. Appellant has not presented evidence to meet that
burden, and has therefore failed to show reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection. For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 16 and 19.
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and recites, "wherein the top and
bottom layers exclude boron." Appeal Br. 22. The Examiner finds that
"[b ]oron is not a necessary component within the composition of the
respective layers of Jha," and is only included in certain embodiments. Final
Action 5; see also Answer 16 (citing Jha 4:11-24). The Examiner also notes
that "in the intermediate product of the multilayered component before the
boron treatment, the layered product of a nickel/titanium/nickel structure
would not necessarily include boron." Answer 16.
Appellant argues that Jha requires boron in the embodiments that the
Examiner relies on to teach the addition of chromium. See Appeal Br. 13-
14.
The Examiner's rejection does not require one to bodily incorporate
the composition of Jha's Figure 5 embodiment into Jha's Figure 4 structure.
See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Rather, as discussed above in relation to claim
1, the Examiner relies on Jha' s general teaching that chromium is among the
suitable elements for adding to a nickel layer. Answer 1 O; see also Jha 4: 11-
19.
In addition, while Jha teaches a boronization step to achieve a lower
brazing temperature in an embodiment that includes chromium, see Jha
3:62--4:15, this step occurs after forming the brazing foil structure, see id. at
15
Appeal2017-006230
Application 14/167, 159
3:60-64. Jha also discusses pros and cons ofboronizing. See id. at 4:2-5
("[E]ven though brittle with the addition of the boron, it is acceptable for use
in heat exchanger applications because the forming was performed prior to
the reacting boronizing step.").
For the above reasons, the preponderance of the evidence favors the
Examiner's conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had reason to omit
boron from Jha's Figure 4 embodiment, as modified by Jha's general
teaching about the addition of chromium. Therefore, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claim 18.
CONCLUSION
The following table summarizes the decision:
Claims
Re"ectea
1, 2, 5, 6, § 103(a) Jha
8-12, 15,
16, 18, 19
4, 7, 14, § 103(a) Jha, Pohlman
17
3, 4, 13, § 103(a) Jha, Keifert
14
Summary
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
1, 2, 8-12, 5, 6, 15
16, 18, 19
4, 14, 17 7
3, 4, 13,
14
1--4, 8-14, 5-7, 15
16-19
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16