United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2020

15137183 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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.
15/137,183 04/25/2016 Lea Kennard Castle 93046US01;
67097-3367PUS1
5196
54549 7590 10/22/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
YOON, KEVIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2020 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 LEA KENNARD CASTLE, MARIO P. BOCHIECHIO,
SHIELA R. WOODARD, and JAMES TILSLEY AUXIER
Appeal 2019-006675
Application 15/137,183
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, 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 1–14. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Corporation. Letter of March 23, 2020.
Appeal 2019-006675
Application 15/137,183
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for testing a hollow metal article.
See, e.g., claims 1 and 7. Appellant’s testing method occurs after the hollow
metal article is formed by investment casting. See, e.g., claim 1.
It was known in the art to investment cast metal articles. Spec. ¶ 1.
When the metal article to be produced is hollow, the metal is cast around a
removable core. Id. A problem is that residual core material may remain
after the removal process, particularly in small passages, serpentine
passages, and dead-end passages. Spec. ¶ 28.
Appellant’s method uses a core with a radiopaque coating on a
ceramic core body. See, e.g., claim 1. The radiopaque coating allows one to
non-destructively determine by x-ray imagery whether any residual core
material remains in the cast hollow metal article. Spec. ¶ 28. Appellant’s
claims require the radiopaque coating have a thickness in a particular range
relative to the maximum thickness of the ceramic core body and this
limitation is the focus of the appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
limitation at issue highlighted, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for testing a hollow metal article, the
method comprising:
submitting a hollow metal article to x-ray imaging,
wherein the hollow metal article was fabricated by casting a
molten metal alloy around a core that had a ceramic core body
and an x-ray radiopaque coating disposed on the ceramic core
body, the core having been chemically removed, wherein the
ceramic core body has a maximum thickness and the x-ray
radiopaque coating has a thickness of 5% or less of the
maximum thickness of the ceramic core body; and
determining based upon the x-ray imaging whether any
of the x-ray radiopaque coating of the core remains in the
hollow metal article.
Appeal 2019-006675
Application 15/137,183
3
Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). Claim 7 is narrower as it affirmatively
requires steps of casting and removing the core.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dalton US 2,812,562 Nov. 12, 1957
Remmers US 5,242,007 Sept. 7, 1993

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–9, and 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dalton. Final Act. 2.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dalton in view of Remmers. Final Act. 6.
OPINION
Appellant concentrates the arguments on the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–5. Thus, in discussing the issue on appeal, we select
claim 1 as representative.
The sole issue in this appeal is: Has Appellant identified a reversible
error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the x-ray
radiopaque coating of Dalton with a thickness of 5% or less of the maximum
thickness of Dalton’s ceramic core body “to ensure dimensional accuracy of
the cast product and detectability of the x-ray radiopaque coating.” Final
Act. 3 (italics omitted).
Appellant has not identified such an error.
Appeal 2019-006675
Application 15/137,183
4
Dalton, like Appellant, performs testing on a cast hollow metal article.
Dalton col. 4, l. 62–col. 5, l. 5. Like Appellant, Dalton forms the hollow
metal article using a core coated with a radiopaque material. Id. Like
Appellant’s coating, Dalton’s coating allows radiographic detection of
unremoved core material. Id.
Dalton discusses the thickness of the coating. Dalton provides
guidance on selecting the core coating material for radiographic detection.
Dalton col. 5, ll. 6–35. Dalton also discusses coating parameters that affect
the clarity of the radiograph image. Dalton col. 5, ll. 36–53. One of those
parameters is the thickness of the coating. Id.
The Examiner, in addition to citing col. 4, line 74 to column 6, line 57
of Dalton to support the rejection, cites to Figure 4 of Dalton. We reproduce
Figure 4 below:

Dalton’s Figure 4 is an isometric view of a pre-coated glass core 4
with glass ends 5, 6, and 7. Dalton col. 3, ll. 35–37; col. 6, ll. 64–69. Dalton
describes a coating process involving painting or spraying a wet milled
suspension of barium fluoride in alcohol onto a 6 mm diameter glass core 4.
Dalton col. 7, ll. 33–55.
The Examiner finds that Dalton’s Figure 4 shows that the x-ray
radiopaque coating has a thickness much less than the maximum thickness
of the ceramic core body. Final Act. 3. Appellant contends that Dalton’s
Appeal 2019-006675
Application 15/137,183
5
figures cannot support the obviousness rejection. Appeal Br. 3–5; Reply Br.
1–2.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it ignores the
context of Figure 4. Figure 4 depicts a radiopaque coating painted or sprayed
onto a glass core for use in the same testing method disclosed by Appellant.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a
suggestion of forming Dalton’s radiopaque coating to a thickness within the
parameters of claim 1 “to ensure dimensional accuracy of the cast product
and detectability of the x-ray radiopaque coating.” Final Act. 3. This is so
given the similarities in objectives for the coating, the similarities in the
casting and imaging processes, and the disclosure of thickness as parameter
affecting imaging.
Appellant has not persuaded us of a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2019-006675
Application 15/137,183
6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–14 103 Dalton 1–9, 11–14
10 103 Dalton, Remmers 10
Overall
Outcome
1–14
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