Varel Europe S.A.S.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 16, 202015352763 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/352,763 11/16/2016 Olivier Ther SDC VT-15-019US 5579 166585 7590 09/16/2020 Varel Intellectual Property 4730 Consulate Plaza Drive Suite 190 Houston, TX 77032 EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/16/2020 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): khines@varelintl.com kripple@varelintl.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OLIVIER THER, ALFAZAZI DOURFAYE, BRUNO CUILLIER, WILLIAMS GOMEZ, YVES CAZALAS, and GILLES GALLEGO Appeal 2019-006105 Application 15/352,763 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1 and 3–15.2 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—i.e., “Varel Europe S.A.S.” (Application Data Sheet filed November 16, 2016 at 7), which is also identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed April 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 3). 2 See Appeal Br. 7–9; Final Office Action entered February 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”) at 3–8; Examiner’s Answer entered June 13, 2019 (“Ans.”) at 4–11. Appeal 2019-006105 Application 15/352,763 2 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for manufacturing a matrix drill bit and to the manufactured matrix drill bit (Specification filed November 16, 2016 (“Spec.”) ¶ 8; Abstract). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows: 1. A method for manufacturing a matrix drill bit, comprising: placing a metallic blank within a casting assembly comprising a mold having an inner surface formed into a negative shape of facial features of the drill bit; loading powder into an annulus formed between the blank and the mold, the powder comprising at least one of: ceramic powder and cermet powder; placing a binder alloy into the casting assembly over the blank and the mold; protecting the binder alloy from oxidation; inserting the casting assembly, blank, powder, and binder alloy into a furnace; operating the furnace to heat the protected binder alloy to an infiltration temperature between solidus and liquidus temperatures thereof and between 950°C and 1061°C, thereby infiltrating the powder with the binder alloy and forming a bit body; removing the bit body from the furnace; and after removal, attaching cutters to blades of the bit body. (Appeal Br. 10 (emphases added)). II. REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1 and 3–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Thomas et al.3 (“Thomas”).4 3 US 2012/0298323 A1, published November 29, 2012. 4 Although not included in the statement of the rejection, the Examiner refers to Horton et al. (“Horton”; US 5,000,273, issued March 19, 1991) as Appeal 2019-006105 Application 15/352,763 3 III. DISCUSSION Unless separately argued within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), the rejected claims stand or fall with claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant to the rule. The Examiner finds that Thomas describes a method for manufacturing a matrix drill bit in which the steps include most of the limitations recited in claim 1 (Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 3–4). Regarding the limitations “infiltration temperature between solidus and liquidus temperatures thereof and between 950°C and 1061°C” recited in the “operating the furnace” step of claim 1, the Examiner finds that Thomas discloses “operating the furnace to heat the protected binder alloy (160) to a desired infiltration temperature, thereby infiltrating the matrix powder (132) with the binder alloy (160) to form a matrix drill bit body (50)” (Ans. 5; Final Act. 3–4) (citing Thomas ¶¶ 100, 102, 111; Figs. 1–14). The Examiner states: Although not explicitly disclosed by Thomas et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that control of the infiltration temperature of the binder alloy between solidus and liquidus temperatures would depend upon the melting point and other properties of the specified metal alloys for use as the binder alloy, and also when taken in combination with the properties of the matrix powder to be used with the specified binder alloy. In this instance, Thomas et al. disclose that the melting points of selected binder alloys vary within a range from about 815°C to about 1230°C, and such selected temperature ranges of infiltration to impart a more uniform solidification of the matrix drill bit body would be selected for improved quality control (see Thomas et al[.]; paragraph [0100]). In addition, further evidence for the infiltration temperature range (Ans. 5–6, 10; Final Act. 4, 7). Appeal 2019-006105 Application 15/352,763 4 Thomas et al. disclose that the infiltration temperature falls between the range of 1000°C and 1050°C . . . . (Ans. 5–6; Final Act. 4 (emphasis added)). The Appellant’s principal contention is that “Thomas does not teach, suggest, or disclose operating the furnace to heat the protected binder alloy to an infiltration temperature between solidus and liquidus temperatures thereof and between 950°C and 1061°C, as recited in claim 1” (Appeal Br. 7). According to the Appellant, “Thomas discloses an infiltration temperature of 1150°C during the discussion of Working Examples at paragraph [0111] and claims a range of infiltration temperatures of 1100°C- 1230°C at claim 17” (id.). In the Appellant’s view, the first sentence of the reproduced Examiner’s statement highlighted above “is unsupported conjecture” (id. at 8). The Appellant argues that “Thomas discloses almost nothing about the furnace temperature except that the binder melts when the furnace temperature reaches the melting point thereof” (id. (citing Thomas ¶ 100)). Regarding Horton, the Appellant argues that this reference “teaches away from attaching cutters after infiltration, as recited in claim 1, and brazing the cutters, as recited in claim 8, at col. 2, lines 13-24” (Appeal Br. 8 (citing Horton col. 5, ll. 17–24)). According to the Appellant, “Horton unmistakably teaches away from the infiltration temperatures discussed/claimed by Thomas as leading to the destruction of the diamond cutters at col. 5, lines 17-24” (id. at 9). We have fully considered the Appellant’s arguments but find them unpersuasive to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appeal 2019-006105 Application 15/352,763 5 Thomas describes a method for manufacturing a matrix drill bit body 50 (Thomas ¶ 102; Fig. 14) comprising, inter alia, loading a metal blank 36 into a mold assembly 100 to produce a mold base 102 with a cavity 104 having a negative profile with respect to the exterior features of the resulting fixed cutter drill bit (id. ¶¶ 52, 92; Figs. 1, 3–9A, 10–13); loading a matrix powder 132, which may be selected from ceramic materials, into the mold assembly 100 such that it fills the space between the metal blank 36 and the mold cavity 104 (id. ¶¶ 79–81, 93; Figs. 1, 3–9A, 10–13); placing a binder material 160, which may be covered with a flux in the same manner as disclosed in the current Specification for protection of the binder from oxidation (Spec. ¶ 23), on top of a filter material 133, a core 150, and the metal blank 36 (id. ¶ 94; Fig. 4); placing the mold assembly 100 and materials disposed therein into a furnace after a preheating step such that “[w]hen the furnace temperature reaches the melting point of [the] binder material 160, [the] molten binder material [160] may infiltrate [the] matrix powder 132” (id. ¶ 100); removing the mold assembly 100 from the furnace and cooling the mold assembly at a controlled rate (id.); breaking away the mold assembly 100 to expose the composite matrix drill bit body 50 (id. ¶ 102); and providing the drill bit body 50 with at least one cutting element 60 in respective pockets 58 (e.g., cutting teeth disposed in the cutter pockets by brazing) for engaging, e.g., a subterranean formation (id. ¶¶ 54, 102– 103). Regarding the melting temperature of the binder material 160, Thomas states that “[t]he melting point of the binder [material 160] may vary depending on the binder material composition, and may generally be in the range of from about 590° C. (1100° F.) to about 1230° C. (2250° F.),” Appeal 2019-006105 Application 15/352,763 6 with a preferred range being about 815°C to about 1230°C (id. ¶ 100). Thus, although Thomas discusses the infiltration conditions in terms of heating the furnace to a furnace temperature approaching the melting point of the selected binder material 160, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 5, 8–9; Final Act. 4) that the infiltration temperatures specified in claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure regarding furnace temperature and the melting point of the binder material 160. In this regard, it would reasonably appear that the conditions in Thomas would include actual infiltration temperatures that overlap significantly with the infiltration temperature of 950°C to 1061°C, as specified in claim 1, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 9–10). That overlap creates a prima facie case of obviousness, which shifts the burden of production to the Appellant to rebut it—either by persuasive argument or with objective evidence. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Appellant’s reliance on Thomas’s working examples (Thomas ¶ 111) disclosing an infiltration temperature of 1150°C and dependent claim 17 reciting a range of infiltration temperatures of 1100–1230°C is misplaced because Thomas is not limited to its working examples or preferred embodiments in a dependent claim but instead, as we found above, discloses broader ranges (id. ¶ 100). Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[I]n a section 103 inquiry, ‘the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.’”) (citing In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). Appeal 2019-006105 Application 15/352,763 7 As indicated above, the Appellant argues that the Examiner’s position is based on “unsupported conjecture” (Appeal Br. 7–8). We disagree, because the disclosure in Thomas fully supports the Examiner’s position (Thomas ¶ 100). Indeed, the Appellant appears to acknowledge that heating the furnace to a particular temperature or heating at least a part of the binder material to its melting temperature is, in effect, the same as the infiltration temperature in arguing that Thomas teaches a different infiltration temperature in the working examples (id. ¶ 111) and dependent claim 17 (Appeal Br. 7). The broader range of temperatures disclosed in paragraph 100 of Thomas overlaps significantly with the range recited in claim 1 currently on appeal. The Appellant argues: Paragraph [0100] of Thomas discloses almost nothing about the furnace temperature except that the binder melts when the furnace temperature reaches the melting point thereof. The sentence of paragraph [0100] relating to proper infiltration and solidification of the binder material just informs about the sensitivity of locations adjacent to nozzle outlets and pockets. There is no actual teaching in this sentence related to the furnace temperature to ensure proper infiltration adjacent to the nozzle outlets and pockets. The sentence of paragraph [0100] relating to improved quality control allowing thinner blades also does not provide any teaching related to the furnace temperature. The rest of paragraph [0100] relates to controlled cooling of the mold assembly using insulation. (Appeal Br. 8). The Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Thomas explicitly states that “[w]hen the furnace temperature reaches the melting point of [the] binder material 160, [the] molten binder material [160] may infiltrate [the] matrix powder 132” (id. ¶ 100). This explicit teaching in Thomas would Appeal 2019-006105 Application 15/352,763 8 have indicated to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the melting point of the selected binder material controls the furnace temperature, and thus the infiltration temperature. As for the Appellant’s argument that Horton teaches away from the cutter limitations recited in claims 1 and 8 (Appeal Br. 8–9), the Examiner explains that the rejection relies on Thomas, which teaches the limitations at issue, as we found above (Thomas ¶¶ 54, 102–103). For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection. IV. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–15 103 Thomas 1, 3–15 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation