United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

2020000889 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
14/794,861 07/09/2015 Brandon W. Spangler 77660US02;
67097-3004US1
1063
54549 7590 09/21/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
FORD, RENE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRANDON W. SPANGLER and
DOUGLAS M. BERCZIK
____________________

Appeal 2020-000889
Application 14/794,861
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6–13, and 15–28. 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. According to Appellant, “[t]he real party in interest is
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000889
Application 14/794,861

2
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a “method for forming a gas turbine
engine component.” Spec., Abstract. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as
illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A method for forming a gas turbine engine
component comprising the steps of:
(a) forging a block from a high temperature alloy
material that can withstand operating temperatures within a
range greater than 2200 and up to 2700 degrees Fahrenheit;
(b) cutting the block into a first portion and a second
portion, the first and second portions each defining an external
surface and an internal surf ace, and including forming the first
and second portions to each include internal surface areas that
form part of one or more internal cooling passages;
(c) forming at least one heat transfer feature directly on
the internal surface area of the one or more internal cooling
passages of at least one of the first and second portions;
(d) attaching the first and second portions together to
form a component such that one internal surface area on the
first portion forms one portion of the internal cooling passage
while an opposing internal surface area on the second portion
forms the remaining portion of the internal cooling passage; and
(e) machining the external surf aces of the first and
second portions subsequent to step (d) to provide a finished
component.
Appeal 2020-000889
Application 14/794,861

3
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:2
I. Claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12, 13, and 15–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable based on Fleck,3 Berczik,4 and Shields;5 and
II. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable based on
Fleck, Berczik, Shields, and Noble.6
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12, 13,
and 15–28
As set forth above, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6–10, 12, 13,
and 15–28 as obvious based on a combination of Fleck, Berczik, and
Shields. We have carefully reviewed the record, including Appellant’s
Appeal and Reply Briefs, and the Examiner’s Final Office Action and
Answer. Based on our review, Appellant does not persuade us that the
Examiner errs. Thus, we sustain the rejection.
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that “[t]here is nothing
found in Berczik to suggest that the material can withstand operating
temperatures that can be up to 2700 degrees Fahrenheit[,] as claimed.”
Appeal Br. 3–4. However, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds
that Berczik’s “material is exactly [the same] as [the material] described in”

2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws a written-description rejection
from the Final Office Action. Answer 3; Final Action 2–3.
3 Fleck, US 6,162,347, issued Dec. 19, 2000.
4 Berczik, US 5,595,616, issued Jan. 21, 1997.
5 Shields, John A., Applications of Molybdenum Metal and Its Alloys,
www.imoa.info/download_files/molybdenum/Applications_Mo_Metal.pdf,
2013.
6 Noble et al., US 2013/0243600 A1, published Sept. 19, 2013.
Appeal 2020-000889
Application 14/794,861

4
Appellant’s Specification. Final Action 4–5; see also id. at 7, 11 (“Berczik
teaches the material being the alloy composed exactly as the claimed alloy
and the alloy as described throughout” Appellant’s Specification.). The
Examiner repeats this finding in the Answer. See, e.g., Answer 4, 6. In both
the Final Office Action and the Answer, the Examiner provides a factual
basis for this finding. See, e.g., Final Action 4–5. However, Appellant does
not argue against this finding in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief.
Thus, the Examiner adequately supports the finding, and Appellant does not
persuade us that this finding is erroneous.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs by determining “that it would
be obvious to replace the material of Fleck with the material of Berczik and
then to replace the casting process of Fleck with a forging process of
Shields.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant bases the arguments on Berczik’s alleged
failure to “disclose or teach a high temperature alloy material that can
withstand operating temperatures up to 2700 degrees Fahrenheit.” Id.
However, because Appellant does not persuade us that Berczik fails to
disclose such a material, for the reasons discussed above, Appellant does not
persuade us of error.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is based on
impermissible “hindsight reconstruction.” Appeal Br. 6. This is because,
according to Appellant,
[t]here is nothing found in any of the references to suggest the
Berczik material can be forged to form a component as claimed.
There certainly is no disclosure of forging a block from a high
temperature alloy material that can withstand operating
temperatures within a range greater than 2200 and up to 2700
degrees Fahrenheit[,] as claimed.
Appeal 2020-000889
Application 14/794,861

5
Id. To the extent that this argument relies on the argument that no reference
discloses such a material, for the reasons discussed above, Appellant does
not persuade us that Berczik fails to disclose such a material. Further, the
Examiner adequately supports that, based on “Shields[’s] teach[ing] [of]
forging molybdenum alloy” (Final Action 5 (citation omitted)), it would
have been obvious to forge Berczik’s molybdenum alloy (id. at 5–6 (citation
omitted)).
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because
Berczik does not disclose forging a block from a high
temperature alloy material, and instead, the entire Berczik
reference is directed to a unique method of enhancing the
oxidation resistance of a molybdenum alloy. The Examiner’s
proposed modification involves changing this method to a
forging method as taught by Shields and then using this forged
material in Fleck. However, changing the method of making
the material of Berczik would render Berczik unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. Further, modifying the material of Fleck
as taught by Berczik would necessarily suggest that the process
to make the material would be in a manner as taught by
Berczik, which does not include forging.
Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant does not persuade us, such as by reference to any
portion of Berczik or any other evidence, or by technical reasoning, that
“changing the method of making the material of Berczik [to forging] would
render Berczik unsatisfactory for its intended purpose [of providing an
oxidation-resistant molybdenum alloy].” Id. at 6. Further, we disagree that
“modifying the material of Fleck as taught by Berczik would necessarily
suggest that the process to make the material would be in a manner as taught
by Berczik, which does not include forging.” Id. at 6–7. Instead, as
discussed above, the Examiner proposes a further modification to Fleck and
Berczik, based on Shields, which discloses forging molybdenum alloy.
Appeal 2020-000889
Application 14/794,861

6
Consequently, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 is in error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3, 6–10, 12, 13, 15–24, 26,
and 28 that the Examiner rejects with, and Appellant does not argue
separately from, claim 1.
Appellant appears to argue separately against the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 25 and 27. Id. at 7. However, Appellant’s arguments are
substantially the same as those discussed above for claim 1. Id. Thus,
Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25
and 27 is in error, and we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
these claims.
Rejection II—Obviousness rejection of claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Appellant argues that the Examiner
errs in rejecting claim 11 based on Noble’s failure to remedy the deficiencies
in independent claim 1’s rejection. Appeal Br. 7. Inasmuch as we sustain
claim 1’s rejection, however, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 11.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3, 6–
13, and 15–28.

Appeal 2020-000889
Application 14/794,861

7
In summary:
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6–10,
12, 13, 15–28
103 Fleck, Berczik,
Shields
1, 3, 6–10,
12, 13,
15–28

11 103 Fleck, Berczik,
Shields, Noble
11
Overall
Outcome:
1, 3, 6–13,
15–28