Ex Parte Pabla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

14193241 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

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.
14/193,241 02/28/2014 Surinder Singh PABLA 270586/22113-0192 5808
13152 7590 09/26/2017
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
EXAMINER
KATZ, VERA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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 SURINDER SINGH PABLA, KRISHNAMURTHY, MURALI
KRISHNA, PADMAJA PARAKALA, and BALA SRINIVASAN
____________

Appeal 2016-008717
Application 14/193,241
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 requests review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14–20 of Application
14/193,241. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Feb. 28, 2014 (“Spec.”),
Final Action dated Dec. 18, 2015 (“Final Act.”), Appeal Brief dated Apr. 8,
2016 (“Br.”), and Examiner’s Answer dated Sept. 6, 2016 (“Ans.”).
2 Appellant is the Applicant, General Electric Company, which is also
identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008717
Application 14/193,241
2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a turbine component coated on
its surface to improve resistance to corrosion and erosion. Br. 2; Spec. ¶¶ 2–
7. Claim 11, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the subject matter
(Br. 24, Claims Appx):
11. A coated article, comprising:
a turbine component defining a substrate surface
having a substrate erosion resistance; and
a coating on the substrate surface, wherein the coating
includes:
a matrix including an anodic material having an anodic
erosion resistance, the anodic material being selected from the
group consisting of Cr70%Ni30% (wt%) and a mixture of
Ni80%Al20% (wt%) and Ni95%Al5% (wt%);
ceramic particles including:
a first ceramic having a first ceramic erosion resistance;
and
a second ceramic having a second ceramic erosion
resistance; and
modified ceramic particles and modified anodic material
formations formed by an inchoate interaction between the
second ceramic and the anodic material,
wherein the first ceramic erosion resistance is:
greater than the second ceramic erosion resistance;
greater than the anodic erosion resistance; and
greater than the substrate erosion resistance, and
wherein the modified ceramic particles are capable of
forming a passive oxide film.
Appeal 2016-008717
Application 14/193,241
3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 11, 12, and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Muth3 and Einberger.4 Final
Act. 4.
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Muth, Einberger, and Dulin.5 Final Act. 10.
3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Muth, Einberger, and Uinlein.6 Final Act. 10.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues claim 11 and does not separately argue any
dependent claims. Br. 12. Dependent claims therefore stand or fall with
claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2013).
Having considered Appellant’s arguments in light of this appeal
record, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for the reasons set forth in the Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our own. We add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Muth teaches a composition and method for applying an erosion
resistant protective coating to a substrate exposed to high temperature and

3 Muth et al., US 2011/0305873 A1, published December 15, 2011
(“Muth”).
4 Einberger et al., US 2005/0260436 A1, published November 24, 2005
(“Einberger”).
5 Dulin, EP 0 657 237 A1, published June 14, 1995 (“Dulin”).
6 Uihlein et al., US 2010/0143108 A1, published June 10, 2010 (“Uihlein”).
Appeal 2016-008717
Application 14/193,241
4
erosive environments. Muth ¶ 2. The Examiner relies on Muth as teaching
all of the limitations of claim 11, except for the recited composition of
Cr70%Ni30% (wt%) of the anodic material. Ans. 2–3. The Examiner finds
that Einberger teaches an erosion resistant coating for high temperature
applications comprising CrNi alloy with at least 7.2 wt% Cr, overlapping the
claimed wt% of Cr (Ans. 3 (citing Einberger ¶ 7, claim 1)), and determines
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have selected the claimed wt% of Cr from the range taught by Einberger, to
use as an anodic material in Muth’s coating composition, in order to improve
wear and scuff resistance. Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that the
materials of the ceramic particles and matrix of Muth as modified by
Einberger are substantially identical to the composition recited in claim 11,
that Muth teaches its coating can be applied by processes identical to those
recited in Appellant’s Specification, and therefore the claimed erosion
resistance properties would necessarily been present. Ans. 4–5.
Appellant argues that Einberger does not teach a range of wt% of Cr
within its CrNi alloy that overlaps the claimed Cr70%Ni30% alloy of
Appellant’s anodic material. Br. 4–5. Specifically, Appellant argues that
the 7.2 wt% Cr taught in Einberger ¶ 7 represents 7.2 wt% of Einberger’s
total system, which contains chromium carbide and molybdenum in addition
to CrNi. Br. 5. Appellant further argues the embodiments in Einberger
¶¶ 18 and 25 teach away from a Cr70%Ni30% alloy because they describe that
an especially useful CrNi alloy contains about 50 wt% Ni, and do not
describe any Cr content in the CrNi alloy greater than about 60 wt%. Br. 5.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner explains in a sample calculation of wt% for each component of the
Appeal 2016-008717
Application 14/193,241
5
blend taught in Einberger ¶ 7 (Ans. 10), 30.1 wt% Cr of the total blend
corresponds to 70 wt% Cr in the CrNi alloy of Einberger’s total blend where
Cr70%Ni30% comprises 43 wt%, and therefore the range of wt % Cr in
Einberger ¶ 7 overlaps the claimed amount. Appellant does not dispute this
calculation. Further, Einberger does not discourage experimentation with
amounts of Cr around 70 wt% and therefore does not teach away.
Moreover, Appellant does not point to any evidence of record to show that
70 wt% Cr in the CrNi alloy is critical.
Appellant further argues that Einberger cannot be combined with
Muth because Muth teaches a turbine component and Einberger is directed
to internal combustion engines which have piston rings and cylinder liners,
and specifically to diesel engines. Br. 10. Appellant thus argues that a
person familiar with turbines would not look to the distinct field of endeavor
of diesel engines, and that Einberger’s coatings are not reasonably pertinent
to the problems encountered in a turbine because diesel engines operate at
vastly reduced temperatures as compared to a turbine. Br. 11. The
Examiner responds that Einberger is directed to improving durability, wear
or corrosion resistance of components in an aggressive environment at high
temperatures and firing pressure, and therefore is directed to the same
problem as Appellant’s application. Ans. 15 (citing Einberger ¶¶ 6–7, Spec.
¶ 15). The Examiner’s finding is reasonable and supported by Einberger.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in
the rejection.

Appeal 2016-008717
Application 14/193,241
6
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 11, 12, and 14–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED