United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2021

2020001271 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2021)

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.
13/725,229 12/21/2012 Steven W. Burd PA-0024017-US 5330
11943 7590 01/21/2021
Getz Balich LLC
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
LAW, NGA LEUNG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2021 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):
shenry@getzbalich.com
uspto@getzbalich.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN W. BURD and ALAN C. BARRON

Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JOHN A. EVANS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 10–17, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corp. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a coating process for
air-cooled components having cooling holes such as gas turbine engine
components. Spec. ¶¶ 1–5. Claims 1, 14, and 21 are the only independent
claims on appeal and are illustrative. We reproduce those claims below
while adding emphases to recitations of particular importance on appeal:
1. A method of coating a component having a
multiple of cooling holes comprising:
removing at least a portion of a prior coating from the
component;
directing a gas through at least one of the multiple of
cooling holes, wherein the at least one of the multiple of
cooling holes extends in the component to an outlet; and
applying a coat layer onto a surface of the component,
wherein the coat layer is contiguous with the outlet on a side of
the at least one of the multiple of cooling holes, wherein a
centerline of the at least one of the multiple of cooling holes is
angularly offset from the surface on the side by an acute angle,
and wherein the gas is directed through the at least one of
the multiple of cooling holes before and during the applying
of the coat layer onto a portion of the surface of the
component adjacent the outlet.
14. A method of coating a component having a
multiple of cooling holes comprising:
directing matter through at least one of the multiple
of cooling holes, the matter consisting of gas, wherein the at
least one of the multiple of cooling holes extends within the
component to an outlet; and

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated January 2, 2019
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 31, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated September 19, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed November 19, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

3
applying a coat layer onto a surface of the component
while directing the gas through at least one of the multiple of
cooling holes, wherein the coat layer forms a portion of the
outlet on a side of the at least one of the multiple of cooling
holes, and wherein a centerline of the at least one of the
multiple of cooling holes is angularly offset from the surface on
the side by an acute angle.
21. A method for coating a component of a gas
turbine engine, comprising:
removing at least a portion of a prior coating from the
component;
directing a gas through a cooling hole, the cooling hole
extending along a centerline in the component to an outlet,
wherein the cooling hole is formed by a cooling hole surface
within the component that extends circumferentially around the
centerline and along the centerline to the outlet; and
applying a coat layer onto an exterior surface of the
component while directing the gas through the cooling hole
such that the gas prevents coating layer material from
adhering to the component within the cooling hole, the
exterior surface being contiguous with the cooling hole surface
at the outlet, wherein the coat layer directly adjoins the outlet
on a side of the cooling hole where an included angle between
the exterior surface and the cooling hole surface is obtuse.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Fried et al. (“Fried”) US 6,667,076 B2 Dec. 23, 2003
Gupta et al. (“Gupta2”) US 7,622,160 B2 Nov. 24, 2009
Fernihough et al.
(“Fernihough”)
US 2008/0085395 A1 Apr. 10, 2008
Gupta et al. (“Gupta1”) US 2010/0126014 A1 May 27, 2010
Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta1 in view of
Gupta2. Ans. 3.
B. Claims 7 and 10–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta1 in
view of Gupta2 and Fernihough. Id. at 5.
C. Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta2 in
view of Fried. Id. at 9.
D. Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta2 in
view of Fried and Fernihough. Id. at 10.
E. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta1 in view of
Gupta2. Id. at 11.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. 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 considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error except where otherwise
indicated below. Thus, where we affirm the Examiner’s rejections, we do so
Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

5
for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejections A and B, obviousness. The Examiner rejects claims 1–6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta1 in view of Gupta2 and rejects
claims 7 and 10–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta1 in view
of Gupta2 and Fernihough. Ans. 3, 5. The Examiner has the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the
initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation
of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been
obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the
inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
employed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
To resolve the issues before us on appeal with regard to these
rejections, we focus on the Examiner’s findings and determinations that
relate to the error Appellant identifies. Claim 1 recites that “gas is directed
through the at least one of the multiple of cooling holes before and during
the applying of the coat layer.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added). The Examiner finds that Gupta2 “teaches the particles are applied to
the holes within 1 second of applying the TBC coating [thermal barrier
coating (Gupta2 1:37–40)]” and that “‘within 1 second’ has the meaning of
from 1 second before to 1 second after” applying the TBC coating. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

6
Appellant argues the Examiner has not established that Gupta2
teaches using grit blaster 30 before coating with thermal spray device 20.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s argument persuades us of Examiner error. Gupta2
teaches use of the grit blaster “simultaneously or shortly after the TBC 22 is
applied to the first surface 11 with the spray device 20.” Gupta2 4:27–36. In
context, however, Gupta2 does not suggest use of the grit blaster prior to
coating with the spray device. Rather, Gupta2 suggests projecting of
particles 34 (with the grit blaster 30) “within about 1 second of applying the
TBC 22” because the TBC constituents will be “typically still sufficiently
warm and soft” to remove the particles. Id. at 4:36–42.
In the Answer, the Examiner presents an alternative explanation for
reaching claim 1’s “before” for the first time. The Examiner finds that “a
very small discrepancy on turning on the spray of the gas slightly ahead of
turning on the TBC coating nozzle can occur” and finds:
when simultaneously applying the TBC coating with spraying the
particle/gas while rotating the substrate [citing Gupta2 Fig. 1], the
particles/gas spraying area is so big, that it would reach the hole
before and during (and possibly after) the TBC coating being applied
onto a portion of the surface of the component adjacent the outlet of
the hole on the other side.

Ans. 14. The Examiner does not adequately explain these positions or
support these positions with evidence. Claim 1 requires directing gas
through cooling holes before applying a coat layer on the component’s
surface, and the Examiner has not adequately explained why a person of
skill in the art would had reason to reach such a method.
Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

7
The Examiner’s treatment of dependent claims does not cure the error
addressed above. We, thus, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1–7 and 10–13.
Rejections C and D, obviousness. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta2 in view of Fried and
rejects claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta2 in
view of Fried and Fernihough. Ans. 9–10. The Examiner finds that Gupta2
teaches applying a thermal barrier coating to an article having cooling holes
and directing particles in gas from a grit blaster through the cooling holes
while applying the coating layer. Id. at 9 (citing Gupta2). The Examiner
finds that Gupta2 does not explicitly teach the matter (from the grit blaster)
consisting of gas (i.e., only gas). Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Fried
teaches a similar method and teaches directing gas through holes during
coating. Id. (citing Fried). The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to direct matter consisting of gas through cooling holes when
practicing the method of Gupta2 because Fried teaches that such gas
prevents the cooling passage opening from being closed up during coating as
a result of material being deposited in the cooling hole. Id.
Appellant argues that use of gas alone cannot work with Gupta2’s
method because gas alone cannot remove obstructions “after they have
already formed as is required by Gupta2.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant’s
argument is unpersuasive because Gupta2 teaches that Gupta2’s grit blaster
may operate simultaneously with application of the thermal barrier coating.
Gupta2 4:27–42. In this scenario, Gupta2 would be operating similarly to
Fried. Fried 2:43–67 (“[D]uring the coating, a mass flow passes through the
cooling-passage opening. This mass flow prevents the cooling-passage
Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

8
opening from being closed up during the coating operation.”). Fried teaches
that, in this scenario, the gas flow is sufficient to prevent coating from
forming within the cooling passage. Id.; see also Ans. 9, 15–16. Use of
Fried’s gas in conjunction with Gupta2’s embodiment that operates the grit
blaster while forming the thermal barrier coating is “predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant also argues that Fried teaches away from the method of
claim 14 because a portion of Fried’s guide vane 2 directly adjoining the
opening is not coated with material. Appeal Br. 12–13. This argument is
unpersuasive because the Examiner rebuts the position in detail and with
citations to evidence, and Appellant does not respond to the rebuttal. Ans.
16–17. In particular, the Examiner reasonably finds that it is Fried’s
particular coating configuration that leads to a “coating shadow” rather than
Fried’s use of gas itself. Id. at 16. Appellant does not persuasively this
finding. The Examiner’s rejection relies on Gupta2 rather than Fried as a
primary reference, and Appellant does not present persuasive argument as to
why the recitations of claim 14 would not be met if only gas were used in
conjunction with Gupta2.
Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify Examiner error, we
sustain these rejections.
Rejection E, obviousness. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gupta1 in view of Gupta2. Ans. 11. The
Examiner finds that Gupta1 teaches, for example, removing a top coat and
applying a coating layer on a component comprising cooling holes. Id. at
11–12 (citing Gupta1). The Examiner finds that Gupta2 teaches, for
example, applying a coating to one surface of a component with cooling
Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

9
holes while striking a second surface with a grit blaster through the cooling
holes. Id. at 12–13 (citing Gupta2). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to direct gas through the cooling holes during the coating
process as Gupta2 suggests when making a component as Gupta1 teaches
because, for example, the concurrent spray and cleaning process would save
time and cost. Id. at 13 (citing Gupta2).
Appellant argues that Gupta2 teaches allowing coating material to
accumulate and then removing it with a grit blaster and that Gupta2’s
method, thus, would not “prevent[] coating layer material from adhering to
the component within the cooling hole” as claim 21 recites. Appellant’s
argument is unpersuasive. As explained above with regard to claim 1,
Gupta2 teaches simultaneous use of the grit blaster while applying the
thermal barrier coating as an option. Gupta2 4:27–42. Because Gupta2
teaches that the grit blaster is powerful enough to remove particles even after
they have adhered, the evidence also supports that the grit blaster would also
be powerful enough to prevent adherence of at least some coating layer
material as claim 21 requires. Moreover, as explained by the Examiner, the
Gupta2 method is the same as Appellant’s method and thus would be
expected to likewise prevent adherence of at least some coating layer
material absent evidence to the contrary. Ans. 17–18.
Because Appellant’s argument does not identify error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2020-001271
Application 13/725,229

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6 103 Gupta1, Gupta2 1–6
7, 10–13 103 Gupta1, Gupta2,
Fernihough
7, 10–13
14, 15 103 Gupta2, Fried 14, 15
16, 17 103 Gupta, Fried,
Fernihough
16, 17
21 103 Gupta1, Gupta2 21
Overall
Outcome
14–17, 21 1–7, 10–13
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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 IN PART