HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2020

2020001608 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2020)

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.
14/042,323 09/30/2013 Natalie Wali H0040654 (002.4667) 7430
89955 7590 08/28/2020
HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 249
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
LAMBERT, WAYNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2020 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):
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
honeywell@lkglobal.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NATALIE WALI
____________

Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 21–34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Honeywell International Inc. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 21, 31, and 33 are independent claims. Claim 33, reproduced
below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
33. A turbine engine component comprising:
a substrate in the form of the turbine engine component;
a bond coating on and over the substrate;
a thermal barrier coating or an environmental barrier
coating on and over the bond coating; and
a calcia-magnesia-alumina-silica (CMAS) protection
ceramic top coating on and over the thermal barrier coating or
the environmental barrier coating, wherein the CMAS
protection ceramic top coating entirely a magnetoplumbite
phase material with a layered crystal structure selected from the
group consisting of: MAl12O19, MAl11O19, and MAl11O18, where
M is a cation selected independently from the group consisting
of: Mg2+, La3+, Gd3+, Mn2+, Si4+, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Ba2+, Fe+, Fe3+,
and Ti4+, wherein the CMAS protection ceramic top coating
comprises an outermost layer over the substrate, and wherein
the CMAS protection ceramic top coating comprises a plurality
of laminar layers that are peelable from one another upon the
deposition of a CMAS material thereto.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

REJECTION2
Claims 21–34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nagaraj (US 7,226,668 B2, issued June 5, 2007), Pracht (US 7,618,911 B2,
issued Nov. 17, 2009), and Berndt (US 2010/0086757 A1, published Apr. 8,
2010). Final Act. 5–19.

2 The rejection of claims 31–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), written
description requirement, has been withdrawn. Ans. 3; Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

3

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 21–34 together.3 Appeal
Br. 6–9. We select claim 33 as representative of the group to decide the
appeal as to the rejection, and claims 21–32 and 34 stand or fall with claim
33. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
As to claim 33, the Examiner finds that Nagaraj discloses a turbine
engine component comprising a bond coating on and over a substrate, a
thermal barrier coating (TBC) or an environmental barrier coating on and
over the bond coating, and a calcia-magnesia-alumina-silica (CMAS)
protection ceramic top coating on and over the thermal barrier coating or
environmental barrier coating. Final Act. 16–17 (citing Nagaraj, col. 3, ll.
18–21, 30–39). The Examiner also finds that the CMAS protection ceramic
top coating comprises a plurality of laminar layers that are peelable from one
another upon the deposition of a CMAS material thereto, as claimed. Id. at
17. The Examiner concedes that Nagaraj does not explicitly disclose that the
CMAS protection ceramic top coating is entirely a magnetoplumbite phase
material with a layered crystal structure selected from the recited group. Id.
The Examiner relies on Pracht as teaching a turbine component
comprising a bond coating on and over a substrate, a thermal barrier
coating on and over the bond coating, and a CMAS protection ceramic
top coating entirely of a magnetoplumbite phase material, which

3 The heading of Appellant’s argument is “Obviousness Rejection of Claim
21: Nagaraj in view of Pracht and Berndt.” Appeal Br. 6 (boldface omitted).
However, as Appellant’s argument is not specific to any one of claims 21–
34, we treat the argument as directed to these claims as a group.
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

4
comprises an outermost layer (i.e., top layer) over the substrate. Final
Act. 17–18 (citing Pracht, col. 1, ll. 24–57, col. 2, ll. 1–8, col. 4, ll.
14–18). The Examiner finds that Pracht’s magnetoplumbite phase
material has a layered crystal structure and is selected from the group
consisting of: MAl12O19, MAl11O19, and MAl11O18, where M is a
cation selected independently from the group consisting of: Mg2+,
La3+, Gd3+, Mn2+, Si4+, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Ba2+, Fe+, Fe3+, and Ti4+, as
claimed. Id. at 17 (citing Pracht, col. 2, ll. 51–col. 3, l. 21).
The Examiner further finds that Berndt teaches a turbine
component having a protection ceramic top coating (top coat 4)
comprising a plurality of laminar layers. Final Act. 18 (citing Berndt,
Fig. 1).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
replace the CMAS protection ceramic top coating of Nagaraj with
Pracht’s CMAS protection ceramic top coating, comprising a plurality
of laminar layers as taught by Berndt. Final Act. 18–19. The
Examiner finds that the laminar layers would be peelable from each
other upon deposition of a CMAS material to the CMAS protection
ceramic top coating. Id. at 19. The Examiner explains that the
proposed modification is a simple substitution of one known element
(i.e., “an alkaline earth aluminate protective top ceramic coating
protecting the TBC coating on a turbine component of Nagaraj”) for
another (i.e., “a[n] alkali earth metal magnetoplumbite phase material
protective top ceramic coating protecting the TBC coating on a
turbine component . . . as taught by Pracht”) to obtain predictable
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

5
results (i.e., “providing protection for the substrate and further for the
TBC coating applied to the substrate”). Id.
Nagaraj discloses that, in gas turbine engine components having
a thermal barrier coating exposed to high temperature, that coating
can comprise yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ), for example. Nagaraj,
col. 1, ll. 24–47. Nagaraj discloses that thermal barrier coatings can
have porous surface structures, which “can be important in the ability
of these thermal barrier coating[s] to tolerate strains occurring during
thermal cycling and to reduce stresses due to the differences between
the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the coating and the
CTE of the underlying bond coat layer/substrate.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 6–
13, 21–26. Delamination and spalling of outer thermal barrier
coatings having porous surface structures typically occurs when
molten CMAS infiltrates the structures and solidifies, causing stresses
to build within the coatings. Id. at col. 2, ll. 27–50.
Nagaraj discloses a thermal barrier coating in articles that
operate at high temperatures and are exposed to environmental
contaminants, and, particularly, CMAS. Nagaraj, col. 2, ll. 51–67.
Nagaraj discloses a coated article 10 comprising a bond coat 18 on a
substrate 14, and a thermal barrier coating 22 on the bond coat 18. Id.
Fig. The thermal barrier coating 22 includes an inner layer 26 and an
outer layer 30 having an exposed surface 34. Id. Suitable ceramic
thermal barrier coating materials for the inner layer 26 include YSZ.
Id. at col. 5, ll. 4–12. The outer layer 30 comprises a CMAS-reactive
material to protect the thermal barrier coating against CMAS
contaminants deposited on the exposed surface 34. Id. at col. 7, ll.
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

6
35–41. The CMAS-reactive material comprises an alkaline earth
aluminate, alkaline earth aluminosilicate, or a mixture thereof,
wherein the alkaline earth is selected from the group consisting of
barium, strontium, and mixtures thereof. Id. at col. 3, ll. 30–39, col. 4,
ll. 36–63.
Pracht describes that YSZ generally has a lower CTE than the
underlying metal layer, and, under thermal stress, this CTE difference causes
the formation of cracks. Pracht, col. 1, ll. 49–52. Pracht discloses a heat-
insulating material comprising a magnetoplumbite phase material with a
layered crystal structure having a formula, as recited. According to Pracht,
the heat-insulating material consistently has “a layered structure having a
characteristic lamellar crystalline structure.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 51–53. The
heat-insulating material may be deposited on components subjected to high
thermal stress and prevent peeling of the layer under alternating temperature
stresses. Id. at col. 3, ll. 47–52.
Appellant contends that Nagaraj discloses that YSZ thermal barrier
coatings are subject to spalling and peeling due to CMAS attachment in
high-temperature operations. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts, “Nagaraj is
directed to a coating for the protection against CMAS deposits; and, in order
to do so, there must be a CMAS protective outer layer.” Reply Br. 2.4
Appellant contends that, in contrast, Pracht does not disclose CMAS-
induced spalling/peeling, but rather, discloses that a YSZ heat-insulating
layer will, under thermal stress, peel off the underlying metal layer due to a
CTE mismatch. Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, Pracht discloses

4 The pages of the Reply Brief are unnumbered. Herein, we refer to the first
page as page 1, the second page as page 2, etc.
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

7
magnetoplumbite materials as a replacement for YSZ, or other heat-
insulating layer. Id. at 7. Appellant contends that Pracht is directed to an
outer thermal barrier coating with improved protection against a failure
mechanism that is unrelated to CMAS. Id.
Appellant submits that a skilled artisan might find it obvious to use
Pracht’s magnetoplumbite material as the thermal barrier coating of Nagaraj,
because, as disclosed by Pracht, this would prevent cracking due to CTE
mismatch with the underlying metal layer. Appeal Br. 7. However,
Appellant asserts, because Pracht does not address CMAS, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to eliminate Nagaraj’s outer
coating alkaline earth aluminates or alkaline earth aluminosilicates. Id. at 7–
8. Appellant contends that Nagaraj teaches a YSZ thermal barrier, and
Pracht teaches an improved thermal barrier coating as compared to YSZ
alone. Id. at 8. Thus, Appellant contends, the combination would have a
first metal layer, a second magnetoplumbite layer as the intermediate layer,
and a third alkaline earth aluminates or alkaline earth aluminosilicates layer
as the outer layer. Id.
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive. First, we disagree that
Pracht’s teachings are limited to using the heat-insulating material
comprising a magnetoplumbite phase material as a replacement for YSZ, or
other heat-insulating thermal barrier layer. Appeal Br. 7. We note, for
example, that Pracht discloses a “most practical” compound that has both the
heat-insulating material and YSZ. Pracht, col. 4, ll. 14–17; see Ans. 6
(“Pracht teaches the magnetoplumbite material in addition to and as an outer
or top layer of the thermal barrier layer” (citing Pracht, col 4, ll. 14–17)).
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

8
Second, although Nagaraj discloses that YSZ thermal barrier coatings
experience spalling and peeling due to CMAS attachment in high-
temperature operations, Nagaraj also discloses that CTE differences between
the thermal barrier coating and the underlying bond coat attribute to
delamination and spalling of thermal barrier coatings subjected to CMAS
attachment, as discussed above. Nagaraj also discloses that the composition
of outer layer 30 of TBC 22 depends upon the CTE characteristics desired
for TBC 22. Nagaraj, col. 7, ll. 55–62. Accordingly, Nagaraj teaches that
the CTE characteristics of the TBC subjected to CMAS attachment are also
a factor. In view of this disclosure in Nagaraj, we are not persuaded that
Nagaraj is only concerned with a failure mechanism that is completely
different from the failure mechanism described in Pracht. Appeal Br. 7.
Third, the Examiner’s proposed modification of Nagaraj would
replace the outer layer, which can be applied over YSZ, with Pracht’s heat-
insulating material comprising a magnetoplumbite phase material, which
Pracht likewise teaches can be used with YSZ. The Examiner finds that
both Nagaraj and Pracht teach spalling of YSZ thermal barrier coatings and
applying a protection layer over the thermal barrier coating to mitigate this
spallation or peeling. Ans. 4. The Examiner’s reason for modifying Nagaraj
in view of Pracht to result in the claimed turbine engine component
comprising the recited CMAS protection ceramic top coating crystal
structure and composition is not required to be the same as that relied on by
Appellant. As long as the prior art suggests the claimed subject matter, it is
inconsequential that the prior art had a different purpose or solved a separate
problem. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“the
Board need not have found the combination of [references] to be desirable
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

9
for the reason stated in [Appellant’s] application”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972) (“The fact that [A]ppellant uses [a claimed
element] for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a
prior art composition would be prima facie obvious from the purpose
disclosed in the references.”).
Moreover, although Pracht does not describe CMAS related failure of
coatings, the Examiner’s position is that the component of Nagaraj, as
modified by Pracht, would predictably perform, and react to CMAS, similar
to the claimed invention when placed in the same conditions. Ans. 5. As to
performance in an environment containing CMAS, the Examiner submits
that the fact Appellant has recognized another advantage, which would flow
naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art, cannot be the basis
for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ans. 4
(citing Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985)).
Appellant further contends that Berndt relates to building-up a thermal
barrier coating layer-by-layer, where each layer uses different size ceramic
particles, but does not relate to CMAS protection or magnetoplumbite
materials, which are inherently laminar. Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner
responds that Berndt teaches that using a plurality of layers of the top layer
can extend the life of the component. Ans. 8.
Moreover, Pracht discloses a heat insulating layer comprising a
magnetoplumbite phase material with a layered crystal structure, and
describes that the heat-insulating material consistently has “a layered
structure having a characteristic lamellar crystalline structure.” Pracht, col.
2, ll. 51–53. In view of this disclosure, Appellant does not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination would comprise a
Appeal 2020-001608
Application 14/042,323

10
“CMAS protection ceramic top coating comprises a plurality of laminar
layers that are peelable from one another upon the deposition of a CMAS
material thereto,” as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 33, and
claims 21–32 and 34, which fall with claim 33, as unpatentable over
Nagaraj, Pracht, and Berndt.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–34 103 Nagaraj, Pracht,
Berndt
21–34

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED