Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

14482811 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/482,811 09/10/2014
6111 7590 12/19/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GE Aviation Patent Operation
1 Neumann Way
Mail Drop F16
Cincinnati, OH 45215
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei-Jun Zhang
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.
261506-3 8057
EXAMINER
ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI-JUN ZHANG,
DOUGLAS GERARD KONITZER, and JOSHUA LEIGH MILLER
Appeal2018-000972
Application 14/482,811 1
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 12-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The appealed invention relates to fatigue resistant nickel-based single
crystal superalloys for turbine blade applications. Spec. ,r,r 2-3.
Independent claims 1, 17, and 23 are representative of the appealed subject
matter. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1 The Appellant and the real party in interest is General Electric Company.
See Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000972
Application 14/482,811
1. A composition of matter, comprising:
from about 5 to about 7 wt% aluminum;
from about 5. 5 to about 8 wt% tantalum;
about 4.3 wt% chromium;
from about 3. 5 to about 7 wt% tungsten;
from 1.5 to about 2.5 wt% molybdenum;
from 3 to about 4 wt% rhenium;
from 9 to about 12 wt% cobalt;
from about 0.2 to about 0.6 wt% hafnium;
from about 0.01 to about 0.03 wt% carbon;
from about 0.002 to about 0.006 wt% boron; and
balance nickel and incidental impurities,
wherein the composition exhibits a sustained peak low cycle
fatigue life at 1800°F /45 ksi of at least 4000 cycles.
Claims Appendix to Br.
Appellant (see Br., generally) requests review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12-19, and 21-29 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi (US
2001/0026769 Al; published Oct. 4, 2001).
2
Appeal2018-000972
Application 14/482,811
II. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 12-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wortman (US 5,240,518;
issued Aug. 31, 1993).
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in
the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2-25.)
OPINION
Rejections I and II2
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the appealed rejections. Our reasons follow:
The dispositive issues can be summarized as follows:
I. Does Kobayashi teach or suggest a composition of matter having
the chromium (Cr) content required by independent claims 1, 17, and 23?
II. Does Wortman teach or suggest a composition of matter having the
chromium (Cr) content required by independent claims 1, 1 7, and 23?
The Examiner found Kobayashi teaches a single crystal nickel base
superalloy composition that comprises O .1--4 weight percent of chromium.
(Final Act. 3). The Examiner found Wortman teaches a single crystal nickel
base superalloy composition that comprises about 5-10 weight percent
weight percent of chromium. (Final Act. 13-14 ). The Examiner
acknowledges the claimed invention is directed to a single crystal nickel
2 Appellant presents substantially the same arguments for independent
claims 1, 17, and 23. (Br. 5-11 ). Addressing Rejection II, Appellant relies
on the same reasoning presented in addressing Rejection I. (Br. 12). We
select independent claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims and limit
our discussion to independent claim 1.
3
Appeal2018-000972
Application 14/482,811
base superalloy composition that comprises about 4.3 weight percent weight
percent of chromium. (Final Act. 3, 13-14). However, the Examiner
determined that ( 1) Kobayashi's description of 4 weight percent of
chromium and (2) Wortman's description of about 5 weight percent of
chromium "would overlap or would be close enough to about 4.3 weight
percent chromium as claimed to establish prima facie evidence of
obviousness." (Final Act. 3 and 14). The Examiner's position is that the
prior art's description of the chromium content of 4 weight percent and
about 5 weight percent is sufficiently close to the claimed chromium content
of about 4.3 weight percent, as required by independent claims 1, 17, and 23,
to render the claimed invention obvious. In support of this position, the
Examiner relies on MPEP §2144.05 presumably for the proposition that the
proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have
expected them to have the same properties. (Final Act. 3 and 14).
Appellant argues that both Kobayashi and Wortman fails to teach or
suggest a composition comprising the chromium content required by
independent claims 1, 17, and 23. (Br. 4--11 ).
We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 17, and 23 cannot be sustained. See In re Patel, 566
Fed. Appx. 1005, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A] rejection based on ranges
approaching each other might well be appropriate where there is a teaching
in the prior art that the end points of the prior art range are approximate, or
can be flexibly applied."). The Examiner has not sufficiently shown that the
skilled artisan would have recognized sufficient flexibility between
( 1) Kobayashi's end point of description of 4 weight percent of chromium
4
Appeal2018-000972
Application 14/482,811
and (2) Wortman's end point of description of about 5 weight percent of
chromium and the claimed non-overlapping amount of about 4.3 weight
percent chromium to conclude that the ranges are close enough that one
skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Here, we emphasize in particular - as did Appellant (Br. 6, 7) -
Kobayashi's teaching that "[w]hen the amount of Cr is more than 4%, a TCP
phase which is a harmful phase is formed," thus "it is necessary that the
amount of Cr is 0.1--4%, and preferably, 2-3%." (Kobayashi ,r 26.) We
furthermore observe Wortman's teaching regarding unacceptably low levels
of hot corrosion resistance if the chromium content is too low, and
Wortman's disclosure that "[t]he chromium content of the alloy is from
about 5 to about 10 weight percent." (Wortman 5: 13-19).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject
independent claims 1, 17, and 23 for the reasons presented by Appellant and
given above.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12-19,
and 21-29 as unpatentable over Kobayashi and claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 12-29
as unpatentable over Wortman are reversed.
REVERSED
5