2019006898 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2020)

SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 10, 2020

2019006898 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 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. 14/251,691 04/14/2014 Kazim Ozbaysal 2013P24727US 6598 28524 7590 11/10/2020 SIEMENS CORPORATION IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244 3850 Quadrangle Blvd Orlando, FL 32817 EXAMINER YANG, JIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/10/2020 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KAZIM OZBAYSAL Appeal 2019-006898 Application 14/251,691 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 2, 7, 15, and 16.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42—i.e., “SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.” (Application Data Sheet filed April 14, 2014 at 4), which is also identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed April 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1). 2 See Appeal Br. 4–8; Reply Brief filed September 23, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) at 2–4; Final Office Action entered December 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 3–6 (referring to Non-Final Office Action entered July 31, 2013 (“Non-Final Act.”) at 5–10); Examiner’s Answer entered August 1, 2019 (“Ans.”) at 3–6. Appeal 2019-006898 Application 14/251,691 2 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for repairing a superalloy component, such as a turbine engine blade, by brazing (Specification filed April 14, 2014 (“Spec.”) at 3, l. 13–4, l. 2). According to the Specification, “[t]he invention combines the porosity reducing function of a hot isostatic pressing operation with the strength restoring function of a solution heat treatment into a single isostatic solution treatment process” (id. at 3, ll. 15–17). The Specification explains: While the prior art process of subjecting a brazed superalloy component to a HIP process followed by a solution treatment might typically yield only 10% acceptable parts due to excessive porosity, and while the prior art process of eliminating the solution treatment might typically yield from 30-50% acceptable parts but with a strength penalty in the superalloy material, the present invention has demonstrated greater than 80% acceptable parts with no superalloy material strength penalty. (Id. at 5, ll. 4–9). Representative claims 1 and 15, which are the only independent claims on appeal, are reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows: 1. A method of repairing a gas turbine blade comprising: applying a boron free braze material to a superalloy component at a brazing temperature of 1,100 - 1,250 °C. in vacuum; performing a solution heat treatment and a hot isostatic pressing process simultaneously on the component at below the brazing temperature for 2 - 4 hours at a pressure of 10 - 25 ksi; fast cooling the component at a minimum of 25 °C/min to ambient while maintaining the pressure of 10 - 25 ksi; and releasing the pressure to ambient. Appeal 2019-006898 Application 14/251,691 3 15. In a method of applying braze material to a superalloy material, an improvement comprising: performing a solution heat treatment and a hot isostatic pressing process simultaneously at a pressure of 10-25 ksi; then rapidly cooling at a minimum of 25 °C/min to ambient temperature while maintaining the pressure of 10- 25 ksi; and returning the pressure to ambient pressure after returning to ambient temperature. (Appeal Br. 10, 11 (emphases added)). II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: A. Claim 15 as unpatentable over Yoshioka et al.3 (“Yoshioka”; referred to as “EP’074” by the Examiner) in view of Kenton (referred to as “US’256” by the Examiner);4 B. Claim 16 as unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Kenton, and further in view of Kulkarni et al.5 (“Kulkarni”; referred to as “US’015” by the Examiner); C. Claims 1 and 7 as unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Kenton, and further in view of Ito et al.6 (“Ito”; referred to as “US’881” by the Examiner); and D. Claim 2 as unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Kenton and Ito, and further in view of Kulkarni. 3 EP 1 605 074 A1, published December 14, 2005. 4 US 4,302,256, issued November 24, 1981. 5 US 9,102,015 B2, issued August 11, 2015. 6 US 9,149,881 B2, issued October 6, 2015. Appeal 2019-006898 Application 14/251,691 4 (Ans. 3–6; Final Act. 3–6; Non-Final Act. 5–10).7 III. DISCUSSION The Examiner determines that all the limitations recited in claim 15 are taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Yoshioka and Kenton (Non-Final Act. 5–6). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Yoshioka teaches a method having all the steps recited in claim 15, including applying a high pressure solution heat treatment and a hot isotactic pressing process at elevated pressures that overlap with the range of pressures recited in the claim (id. at 5). The Examiner states that the overlap creates a prima facie case of obviousness and that, “[t]herefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to optimize pressure as disclosed by [Yoshioka] because [Yoshioka] teaches the same process of brazing a super- alloy material throughout the whole disclosed ranges” (id. at 5–6). The Examiner relies on Kenton as evidence to support the notion that maintaining pressure during cooling is well-known in the art (id. at 6). The Appellant contends, inter alia, that the relied-upon portions of Yoshioka do not teach or suggest performing solution heat treatment and HIP process simultaneously as required by the claims (Appeal Br. 6). According to the Appellant, “[a] hot isostatic press operation includes the treatment of a component with high temperature and high gas pressure in all directions (isostatic)[,] which leads to the collapse of internal porosity to a 7 The Examiner states that a rejection under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting of claim 1, 2, 7, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over claims 21–27 of Application 14/768,136 (now claims 1–6 of US 9,782,862 B2 issued October 10, 2017) in view of Yoshioka and Kenton has been withdrawn in view of a Terminal Disclaimer filed April 18, 2019 (Ans. 3). Appeal 2019-006898 Application 14/251,691 5 combination of plastic deformation and creep” (id. (citing Spec. 1, l. 29–2, l. 18)). We agree with the Appellant. Our reasons follow. Yoshioka describes a thermal recovery treatment process for a service-degraded component of a gas turbine, in which a recovery heat treatment is conducted at elevated pressure, a solution heat treatment is conducted at reduced pressure or inert gas atmosphere after the recovery heat treatment, and an aging heat treatment is processed under reduced pressure or an inert gas atmosphere after the recovery heat treatment (Yoshioka Abstract; ¶ 30). Yoshioka teaches that the repair may be done by any process known in the art, including vacuum brazing (id. ¶ 28). Although Yoshioka mentions hot isotactic pressing (HIP), that disclosure is in the context of “a prior-heated HIP-processed alloy” or another prior art process—not in the context of performing a solution heat treatment and an HIP process simultaneously (id. ¶¶ 58–59, 66). Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner’s contrary finding constitutes reversible error (Ans. 6). Because this flaw in the Examiner’s findings applies equally to claim 1, we do not sustain any of the four rejections. Appeal 2019-006898 Application 14/251,691 6 IV. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 15 103 Yoshioka, Kenton 15 16 103 Yoshioka, Kenton, Kulkarni 16 1, 7 103 Yoshioka, Kenton, Ito 1, 7 2 103 Yoshioka, Kenton, Ito, Kulkarni 2 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 7, 15, 16 REVERSED