Ex Parte Schick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2018

13719772 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/719,772 12/19/2012
7788 7590
General Electric Company
Attn: ERNEST CUSICK
1 Research Circle
Kl-3A60
Niskayuna, NY 12309
09/13/2018
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Edward Schick
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.
263850 8345
EXAMINER
WANG, XIAOBEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2018 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):
shannon.cannizzaro@ge.com
ernest.cusick@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID EDWARD SCHICK,
SRIKANTH CHANDRUDU KOTTILINGAM, BENJAMIN PAUL LACY,
and JOHN WESLEY HARRIS JR.
Appeal2017-009925
Application 13/719, 772
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 11-20 of Application
13/719,772 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (August 23,
2016). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1 General Electric Co. is identified as the applicant and real party in interest.
Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009925
Application 13/719,772
BACKGROUND
The '772 Application describes articles of manufacture having near-
surface cooling microchannels and methods for providing such micro-
channels. Spec. ,r 1. Near-surface cooling microchannels are useful for
providing forced-air cooling in articles such as turbine components that
operate in the hot gas path of, for example, aircraft gas turbine engines.
Id. ,r 2. Because the efficiency of a turbine depends upon its operating
temperature, there is a demand for turbine components capable of
withstanding increasingly higher temperatures. Id. Although turbine
components are typically made from so-called superalloys, which have high
melting temperatures,, the maximum local temperature of various
components can approach the melting temperature of the superalloy,
necessitating forced air cooling. Id. In a typical forced air cooling scheme,
air is forced through internal cooling passages within the component and
then discharged through cooling holes to transfer heat from the component.
Id.
Claim 11 is representative of the '772 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix.
11. A component comprising:
a base article comprising an internal cooling passage
having an opening at an outer surface; and,
a single pre-sintered preform having a first surface
bonded to the outer surface of the base article, wherein the
single pre-sintered preform comprises a near-surface cooling
microchannel in the first surface aligned with the opening of the
outer surface of the base article, and wherein the single pre-
sintered preform comprises a mixture comprising a base alloy
and a second alloy, the base alloy comprising about 30 weight
percent to about 90 weight percent of the mixture and the
second alloy comprising a sufficient amount of a melting point
2
Appeal2017-009925
Application 13/719,772
Br. 7. 2
depressant to have a lower melting temperature than the base
alloy.
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Bunker3 and Ott. 4 Final Act. 4.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for reversal of the rejection of claims 11-20 as an
undifferentiated group. Br. 3---6. Accordingly, we select claim 11-the only
independent claim on appeal-as representative of the appealed claims.
Claims 12-20 will stand or fall with claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner rejected claim 11 as unpatentable over the combination
of Bunker and Ott. Final Act. 4--5. In doing so, the Examiner found that
Bunker describes a configuration for hot gas cooling microchannels within a
2 Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
3 US 2012/0243995 Al, published September 27, 2012.
4 US 2012/0308843 Al, published December 6, 2012.
3
Appeal2017-009925
Application 13/719,772
turbine component. Id. at 4. For convenience, we reproduce an annotated
version of Bunker's Figure 7 below.
110
Fig. 7
Bunker's Figure 7 is a schematic illustration of
a process step for forming channels in a structural coating.
Bunker ,r 13. We have added the red annotations.
The Examiner found that Bunker describes a turbine component
comprising a substrate 110 ( corresponding to the claimed base article)
having access holes 140, which correspond to the claimed internal cooling
passage having an opening at an outer surface. Final Act. 4. The component
further comprises a structural coating 54 (which the examiner found
corresponds to the claimed single sintered preform) and an additional
coating 56. Id. Structural coating 54 is integrally bonded to the outer
surface 112 of substrate 110. Id. Grooves 1325 are present in structural
coating 54. Id. The Examiner also found that the differences between
Bunker and the claimed component are that "Bunker does not expressly
5 At the point in Bunker's manufacturing process depicted in Figure 7,
grooves 132 contain filler material 32. Bunker ,r 33.
4
Appeal2017-009925
Application 13/719,772
teach that the structural coating is a sintered preform[] or has the claimed
compositional makeup." Id.
The Examiner further found that
Ott teaches that constructing turbine cooling channel
components from mix[ ed] powdered pre-sintered preforms is
now conventional and obvious in the turbine cooling art ( e.g.
see [Ott] claims 20-38). Ott discloses that that [sic] pre-sintered
preform materials (PSP 's) are made from a mixture of braze
and base material and can be used like conventional sheet
material to produce cooling channels (i-f 26). Depending on the
temperatures of the particular gas turbine component
environment, the amount of base alloy can vary between 40-
80% and the amount of braze between 20-60% (i-f 27) .... Ott
discloses that the pre-sintered preform can have preformed
profiles for cooling channels (i-f 10) and also that the carrier
substrate can be made from the pre-sintered preform materials
(i-f 14). It would have been obvious at the time of the invention
to use the manufacturing process described in Ott to produce
the cooling channel containing structural coating of Bunker
because such processes are known in the art for obtaining that
exact product, and have advantages such as being easier to
perform with greater precision (Ott, ,r 8).
Id. at 4--5.
Appellants argue that the rejection should be reversed because (1) the
Examiner erred by finding that Bunker's element 54 corresponds to the
claimed sintered preform, Br. 4; (2) the combination of Bunker and Ott does
not disclose, teach, or suggest the features of the claimed embodiments, id.
at 4--5; (3) the Examiner made improper use of hindsight in reconstructing
the claimed invention to formulate the rejection, id. We address these
arguments seriatim.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that
Bunker's structural coating 54 corresponds to the claimed single pre-sintered
preform. Br. 4. Appellants specifically argue that the Examiner's finding is
5
Appeal2017-009925
Application 13/719,772
erroneous because Bunker's structural coating 54 is formed using either an
ion plasma deposition or a thermal plasma spray process. Id. According to
Appellants,
Id.
a person of ordinary skill in the art would clearly and
immediately recognize the distinct and non-analogous
dichotomy between a spray formed coating element and a pre-
sintered preform .... [R]egardless of Ott's alleged teachings on
a pre-sintered preform, a preform is not in any way analogous
to [a] coating that is formed by a spray process.
We are not persuaded by this argument.
Claim 11 is an apparatus claim. In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner
compared Bunker's structure with the claimed structure and identified which
portions of that structure corresponded to particular portions of the structure
recited in claim 11. This is a structural comparison and, at this stage of the
analysis, does not depend on the particular methods used to make the
corresponding portions of the prior art and claimed structures. Because the
Examiner's rejection includes replacement of Bunker's spray coating layer
54 with a pre-sintered preform as described in Ott, the particular methods of
manufacture in the claimed invention and the proposed combination forming
the basis for the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 are identical.
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness because the combination of Bunker and Ott
does not disclose, teach, or suggest the features of the claimed invention.
Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding
that Ott described or suggested a single pre-sintered preform. Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that "Ott only discloses using one or more flat section [sic]
of pre-sintered of [sic] preform against a component, wherein the entirety of
6
Appeal2017-009925
Application 13/719,772
the cooling channel is configured in the substrate itself (see, e.g., FIG. 2 of
Ott)." Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument.
As the Examiner points out, Appellants admit that Ott discloses using
one or more flat sections of pre-sintered preform against a component.
Answer 6 ( citing Br. 5). Furthermore, as the Examiner found, Ott teaches
that the pre-sintered preform sheet can have a profile manufactured for a
specific use like forming a cooling channel for any hot gas component. Ott
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly relied upon
hindsight to formulate the rejection. Br. 4--5.
We are not persuaded by this argument.
As the Examiner explained, at the time of the invention, a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Bunker and Ott because Ott describes its process for forming near-surface
cooling channels as easier to carry out with precision and simplifying the
manufacturing process by avoiding tedious and labor-intensive work.
Answer 7 ( citing Ott ,r 8). The Examiner specifically found that the
statements are sufficient motivation to combine Bunker and Ott because the
method disclosed in Bunker to create the structural coating could fairly be
characterized as tedious and labor-intensive. Id. at 7-8 (citing Bunker ,r,r 28,
33).
We detect no error in these findings. The Examiner's identification of
sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
references relied upon in the rejection is a sufficient protection against the
improper use of hindsight in formulating the rejection.
7
Appeal2017-009925
Application 13/719,772
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 11-
20 as unpatentable over the combination of Bunker and Ott.
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
8