Ex Parte Abriles et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

11638050 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/638,050 03/22/2007 Beth K. Abriles 0002535-US (06-381) 2658 52237 7590 09/17/2012 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte BETH K. ABRILES, JOHN H. HYDE and JAMES J. MOOR ______________ Appeal 2011-008596 Application 11/638,050 Technology Center 1700 _______________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008596 Application 11/638,050 2 Appellants appeal to the Board from the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 1 through 15 and 17 through 25 in the Office Action mailed June 2, 2010. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner. Appellants request review of the following rejections (App. Br. 8) from the Primary Examinerâ€™s Final Office Action: 1. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-15 and 17-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pietruska 150, US 5,922,150 issued July 13, 1999 and Bewlay, US 6,626,228 B1 issued September 30, 2003. 2. Claims 4, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pietruska 150, Bewlay and Pietruska 198, US 2002/0185198 A1published December 12, 2002. 1 OPINION After thorough review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in maintaining the rejection claims 1-15 and 17-25 under Â§ 103(a) over Pietruska 150 and Bewlay. According to Appellants, 1 A discussion of the Pietruska 198 reference is unnecessary for disposition of the present appeal. The Examiner relied upon this reference for describing features not related to the dispositive issue. Appeal 2011-008596 Application 11/638,050 3 Independent claims 1 and 19 are each directed to a repair technique in which a first layer of a first nickel or cobalt base alloy repair material is placed in a crack, a layer of a weld repair material which assists in providing a diffusion medium is deposited over the first layer, and a second layer of a second nickel or cobalt base alloy repair material is deposited over the weld material. Appellants have found that in repairing wide cracks, the use of an intermediate weld material layer is advantageous because the weld material acts as a filler which assists in repairing the wide area of the crack and assists in providing a medium for diffusion which is important when performing a low temperature or short duration diffusion cycle. Neither Pietruska et al. patent nor the Bewlay et al. patent recognize the foregoing advantages to using an intermediate welding step. Further, neither reference discloses or suggests a repair technique which uses the claimed step of forming an intermediate layer of a weld material between two layers of a different repair material. App. Br. 11. We agree with Appellants that neither Pietruska nor Bewlay discloses or suggests a repair technique which uses the claimed step of forming an intermediate layer of a weld material between two layers of a different repair material. Id. The Examiner has not adequately refuted Appellantsâ€™ position. All of the appealed rejections are reversed. REVERSED bar