Krishan Lal. Luthra et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2019

14826765 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2019)

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.
14/826,765 08/14/2015 Krishan Lal LUTHRA 276536-1 4803
161134 7590 08/12/2019
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
IVEY, ELIZABETH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2019 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):
GRCLegal.mail@ge.com
docket@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KRISHAN LAL LUTHRA,
PETER JOEL MESCHTER, VIDYA RAMASWAMY, and
HONGBO CAO
____________________

Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

REN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection2 of claims
8, 9, 14, and 20–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is identified as “General Electric Company.”
Appeal Brief of April 9, 2018 (“Br.”), 2.
2 Non-Final Office Action of November 9, 2017 (“Act.”). In this opinion, we
also refer to the Application filed August 14, 2015 (“Spec.”), the Examiner’s
Answer of May 31, 2018 (“Ans.”) and the Reply Brief of July 31, 2018
(“Reply Br.”). The record includes at least a Non-Final Rejection of August
29, 2016 and a Final Rejection of January 27, 2017.
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
“The present technology relates to environmental barrier coatings, and
more particularly to environmental barrier coatings that offer improved
resistance to dust deposits.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 8, 9, 14, and 20, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
8. An environmental barrier coating system for a
component of a gas turbine, comprising:
at least one rare earth disilicate layer; and
at least one rare earth monosilicate layer,
wherein at least one of the at least one rare earth disilicate
layer or the at least one rare earth monosilicate layer includes an
alkaline earth oxide dopant, wherein the at least one rare earth
disilicate layer is doped with an amount of the alkaline earth
oxide dopant to about 1–25 mole % of the at least one rare earth
disilicate layer, the alkaline earth oxide dopant comprises CaO
and the at least one rare earth disilicate layer contains Y2O3, and
the at least one rare earth disilicate layer has a composition
bounded by a region in the rare earth oxide/silica/alkaline earth
oxide compositional space defined by a first composition point
at Ca2Y8Si6O26, a second composition point at Y2SiO5, and a
third composition point at Y2Si2O7.

9. An environmental barrier coating system for a component
of a gas turbine, comprising:
at least one rare earth disilicate layer; and
at least one rare earth monosilicate layer,
wherein at least one of the at least one rare earth disilicate
layer or the at least one rare earth monosilicate layer includes an
alkaline earth oxide dopant, wherein the at least one rare earth di
silicate layer is doped with an amount of the alkaline earth oxide
dopant to about 1–25 mole % of the at least one rare earth di
silicate layer, the alkaline earth oxide dopant comprises CaO and
the at least one rare earth disilicate layer contains Y2O3, and the
at least one rare earth disilicate layer has a composition bounded
by a region in the rare earth oxide/silica/alkaline earth oxide
compositional space defined by a first composition point at
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

3
Ca2Y8Si6O26, a second composition point at Ca3Y2Si6O18, and a
third composition point at Y2Si2O7.

14. An environmental barrier coating system for a component
of a gas turbine, comprising:
at least one rare earth disilicate layer; and
at least one rare earth monosilicate layer,
wherein at least one of the at least one rare earth disilicate
layer or the at least one rare earth monosilicate layer includes an
alkaline earth oxide dopant, wherein the at least one rare earth
monosilicate layer is doped with an amount of the alkaline earth
oxide dopant to about 1–25 mole % of the at least one rare earth
monosilicate layer, the alkaline earth oxide dopant comprises
CaO and the at least one rare earth monosilicate layer contains
Y2O3, and the at least one rare earth monosilicate layer has a
composition bounded by a region in the rare earth
oxide/silica/alkaline earth oxide compositional space defined by
a first composition point at Y2O3, a second composition point at
Ca2Y8Si6O26, and a third composition point at Y2SiO5.

20. An environmental barrier coating system for a component
of a gas turbine, comprising:
at least one rare earth disilicate layer; and
at least one rare earth monosilicate layer,
wherein at least one of the at least one rare earth disilicate
layer or the at least one rare earth monosilicate layer includes an
alkaline earth oxide dopant, wherein at least one of the at least
one rare earth di silicate layer or the at least one rare earth
monosilicate layer further includes an alkaline-earth-rare-earth-
silicate dopant of the formula AE·RE·S, where AE is Be, Mg,
Ca, Sr, Ba, Ra, or combinations thereof, and RE is Sc, Y, La, Ce,
Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, or
combinations thereof, and Sis a compound containing an anionic
silicon compound, the alkaline-earth-rare-earth-silicate dopant is
a calcium-rare-earth-silicate dopant, the calcium-rare-earth
silicate dopant is CaYS, and the layer including the alkaline
earth-rare-earth-silicate dopant has a composition including a
composition point at Ca2Y2Si2O9 in the rare earth
oxide/silica/alkaline earth oxide compositional space.
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

4
Claims Appendix (Br. 18–19).

REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Kirby
Lee 163
Lee 058
US 2014/0134399 A1
US 2014/0199163 A1
US 2015/0267058 A1
May 15, 2014
Jul. 17, 2014
Sep. 24, 2015
Sun US 7,063,894 B2 Jun. 20, 2006

Nagasawa, “CaO-Y2O3-SiO2 Oxides prepared at 1700K in Air,” Journal
of the Ceramic Society of Japan, 106, 1238-1241 (1998).

REJECTIONS
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.5.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee 058 as evidenced by Nagasawa. Act. 4. Claims 8 and
9 are also rejected under 35 U.5.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 058
in view of Sun as evidenced by Nagasawa. Act. 15.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lee 058, in view of Lee 163, as evidenced by Nagasawa. Act. 7. Claim 14 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 058, in view
of Sun and Lee 163, as evidenced by Nagasawa. Act. 18.
Claims 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee 058 in view of Kirby, as evidenced by Merriam-
Webster Online Dictionary and Nagasawa. Act. 10. Claims 20–22 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 058 in view
of Sun, Kirby, as evidenced by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and
Nagasawa. Act. 20.
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

5
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After having
considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’
contentions, we are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified,
and we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in
the Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Claims 8 & 9 Under Lee 058 as evidenced by Nagasawa3
In rejecting claims 8 and 9, the Examiner finds that Lee 058 describes
the recited barrier coating system having an alkaline earth oxide dopant
range overlapping the recited “1–25 mole %” except the following
limitations: “the alkaline earth oxide dopant comprises CaO and the at least
one rare earth disilicate layer contains Y2O3,” “and the at least one rare earth
disilicate layer has a composition bounded by a region in the rare earth
oxide/silica/alkaline earth oxide compositional space defined by a first
composition point at Ca2Y8Si6O26, a second composition point at Y2SiO5,
and a third composition point at Y2Si2O7” or “the at least one rare earth

3 Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejection of claims 8
and 9 under Lee 058 and Sun as evidenced by Nagasawa. Br. 16. This
ground of rejection of claims 8 and 9 is therefore affirmed for the same
reason as the rejection based on Lee 058 as evidenced by Nagasawa. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

6
disilicate layer has a composition bounded by a region in the rare earth
oxide/silica/alkaline earth oxide compositional space defined by a first
composition point at Ca2Y8Si6O26, a second composition point at
Ca3Y2Si6O18, and a third composition point at Y2Si2O7.” Act. 5 (finding that
Lee 058 teaches doping a rare earth disilicate layer with 0.1-1 wt% of an
alkaline earth oxide).
Finding that (1) CaO is one of only six alkaline earth oxides and (2)
yttrium is one of the few rare earth elements, the Examiner reasons that a
skilled artisan would have arrived at the recited composition based on the
Lee 058’s teaching of a coating having the recited monosilicate and
disilicate layers as well as an alkaline earth oxide dopant. Id. at 5–6. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Nagasawa is a ternary-style
composition diagram of “[s]ample composition and CaO-SiO2-Y2O3 oxides
prepared at 1700 K in air” showing that “the phases of material formed
depending on the amount of the three materials” are known. Id. at 6.4 This
finding is consistent with Figure 3 of the specification which is “a ternary-
style composition diagram of a type commonly used in the art” showing
compositions where “the rare earth oxide is Y2O3 and the alkaline earth
oxide is CaO.” Spec. ¶ 16. The Examiner further points out that Table 1 of
Nagasawa provides various examples corresponding to Figure 1 of
Nagasawa – among them, examples 29–37 showing the recited Ca2Y8Si6O26

4 Appellants argue that Figure 1 of Nagasawa “is a ternary phase diagram of
CaO-SiO2-YO1.5” but does not support the argument with citation to the
record. Br. 12, 13 (stating that the examples in Table 1 of Nagasawa
correspond to CaO-SiO2-YO1.5). This assertion is not supported by the
record before us. Nagasawa at 1240 (showing “Fig. 1 Sample composition
and CaO-SiO2-Y2O3 oxides prepared at 1700 K in air. The numbers in the
figure correspond to the sample number in Table 1”).
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

7
is formed over 5-25 mol% of CaO and example 36 specifically showing the
three composition points recited in claim 8. Ans. 24; see also Act. 6–7.
Appellants do not dispute the teachings of Lee 058 or Nagasawa but
argue that “[i]t is unclear to Appellants what Nagasawa et al. are [sic.]
supposed to be ‘evidence of.’” Br. 11. To the extent that Appellants’
argument is that Nagasawa does not qualify as prior art, the argument is
unpersuasive as it lacks evidentiary support. “Attorneys’ argument is no
substitute for evidence.” Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). Appellants’ argument that Nagasawa does not teach or suggest
“any of the compositions were prepared or produced by any of the processes
disclosed in the application” (Br. 11) is likewise unpersuasive because it
does not address the Examiner’s fact findings or rationale supporting the
rejection. We further note that the Examiner in fact finds a process by which
the recited compositions may be produced “is totally absent” from the
specification. Ans. 27.
We have considered the remaining arguments raised by Appellants
but because they do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s fact
findings in support of the rejection, we sustain the rejection. See Br. 5–11
(raising arguments with regard to office actions prior to the one from which
this appeal is taken).
Claim 14 Under Lee 058 and Lee 163 as evidenced by Nagasawa5
In rejecting claim 14, the Examiner finds that Lee 163 describes a
coating having an abradable layer which comprises an alkaline earth oxide

5 Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejection of claim 14
under Lee 058, Lee 163, and Sun as evidenced by Nagasawa. Br. 16. This
ground of rejection of claim 14 is therefore affirmed for the same reason as
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

8
doped rare earth monosilicate layer. Act. 8 (citing Lee 163 ¶¶ 20, 82, 85).
Based on the teaching of Lee 058 for doping a rare earth disilicate layer with
0.1-1 wt% of an alkaline earth oxide, the Examiner finds that a skilled
artisan would have arrived at 0.1-0.1 mol% of the alkaline earth oxide on a
monosilicate layer. Id.
Appellants argue that the first abradable layer 62 of Lee 163 “does not
correspond to the rare earth monosilicate layer of claim 14” because layer 62
“is applied directly to the substrate 12 and has a second abradable layer 64
formed over it.” Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument as it does not
sufficiently explain why layer 62 of Lee 163 is structurally distinguished
from the recited rare earth monosilicate layer. Moreover, Appellants’
argument is not supported by Lee 163 which provides that the first abradable
layer 62 “may include a rare-earth monosilicate” or “a mixture of rare earth
monosilicate and rare earth disilicate.” Lee 163 ¶¶ 82, 83. Appellants also do
not address the Examiner’s rationale that, based on Lee 163’s teaching to use
the abradable layer as a seal between engine components on which the
recited coating may be applied, a skilled artisan would have arrived at the
recited monosilicate layer. Compare Act. 8 (citing Lee 163 ¶¶ 20, 82, 85),
with Br. 14 (arguing only that combining the references would “reduce the
temperature capability and water vapor stability” of the coating). We
accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 14.

the rejection based on Lee 058 and Lee 163 as evidenced by Nagasawa. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

9
Claims 20–22 Under Lee 058 and Kirby as evidenced by Nagasawa &
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary6

For the rejection of 20–22, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred
because Kirby does not “disclose that the process of forming the outer layer
20 is ‘identical’ or ‘substantially identical’ to the process disclosed in the
instant application.” Br. 15. As noted earlier, the Examiner finds that the
specification discloses no process for producing the recited compositions.
Ans. 27. Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s factual
findings in support of the rejection. For example, the Examiner finds that
“Kirby teaches an environmental barrier coating that includes a rare earth
monosilicate outer layer . . . doped with an alkaline earth rare earth silicate
dopant . . . which is an anionic Si compound.” Act. 11 (citing Kirby ¶¶ 23,
25, 26 and a definition of “silicate” from the Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary). Appellants do not address these findings. Br. 15 (citing ¶¶
Kirby 40–51 instead and arguing that Kirby uses “a slurry sintering process”
to form the outer layer). No reversible error has therefore been identified in
the Examiner’s findings and we sustain the rejection as a result.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

6 Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejection of claims
20–22 under Lee 058, Kirby and Sun as evidenced by Nagasawa &
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Br. 17. This ground of rejection of
claims 20–22 is therefore affirmed for the same reason as the rejection based
on Lee 058 and Kirby as evidenced by Nagasawa & Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-007956
Application 14/826,765

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED