Ex Parte Collins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2018

13536141 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/536,141 06/28/2012 Kevin L. Collins 54549 7590 03/22/2018 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. PA20515U; 67097-1823 PUSl 1027 EXAMINER HORNING, JOEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2018 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 KEVIN L. COLLINS and MICHAEL J. MINOR Appeal2017-005519 Application 13/536,141 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-9, and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 28, 2012 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action mailed February 3, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed August 3, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed December 15, 2016 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed February 15, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-005519 Application 13/536,141 The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a method for chromium diffusion coating an article. Spec. i-fi-f l, 4. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Appendix of Claims from the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claims on appeal. 1. A method of diffusion coating an article, the method compnsmg: applying a mixture to a localized portion of an article, the mixture consisting essentially of an active coating metal of chromium powder, alumina powder, a diffusion activator of chromium(III) chloride and an organic carrier material; heating the article at a diffusion temperature to cause diffusion of the chromium powder into the localized portion of the article to form a diffusion coating on the localized portion, wherein a lateral portion of the article next to the localized portion is exposed to chromium-containing remnant vapors generated from the mixture by the heating; and controlling lateral size of the diffusion coating by carrying the chromium-containing remnant vapors away from the lateral portion in a continual flow of argon-based gas over the lateral portion to thereby reduce deposition of the chromium-containing remnant vapors on the lateral portion. Appeal Br. 8 (App. of Claims). DISCUSSION The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 23-27 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schaeffer et al. (US 5,67 4,610, issued October 7, 1997) ("Schaeffer") in view of Grisik et al. (US 4,148,936, issued April 10, 1979) ("Grisik") in view of Pfaendtner et al. (US 2001/0055650 Al, published December 27, 2001) ("Pfaendtner"). Final Act. 2-7. The Examiner also maintains the rejection of claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Schaeffer, Grisik, Pfaendtner, and Baldi 2 Appeal2017-005519 Application 13/536,141 (US 5,194,219, issued March 16, 1993), and the rejection of claims 21 and 22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Schaeffer, Grisik, Pfaendtner, and further in view of Madhava et al. (US 2005/0265 851 A 1, published December 1, 2005) ("Madhava") as evidenced by Burke et al. (US 4,637,448, issued January 20, 1987) ("Burke"). Final Act. 8-10. The rejections all rely on a proposed combination of Schaeffer, Grisik, and Pfaendtner, and are argued together by Appellants. Appeal Br. 3-7. Thus, we choose claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims, claims 2-5, 7-9, and 21-27. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37 (c)(l)(iv). Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner's Â§ 103(a) rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and Answer. We add the following. The Examiner finds that Schaeffer teaches a method for diffusion coating a localized portion of a substrate by applying a coating tape that includes powdered chromium, a solid reactant that is operable to react with solid chromium at an elevated temperature to produce a gaseous chromium- containing compound (such as ammonium chloride), an inert powder, and a binder. Final Act. 2-3; Schaeffer 2:7-30, 50-65, 5:5-7. The Examiner also finds that Schaeffer teaches coating only a desired portion of the substrate with the chromium layer and preventing chromium from escaping from the localized region using either a container or a barrier (masking) layer. Final Act. 4; Schaeffer 6:35---67, 7:5-16. To prevent another oxide forming during heating and chromium deposition, Schaeffer teaches passing a non-oxidizing 3 Appeal2017-005519 Application 13/536,141 atmosphere, such as hydrogen or argon gas, over the exterior of the container or barrier cover. Schaeffer 6:65-7:20. The Examiner acknowledges that Schaeffer does not specifically teach using chromium (Ill) chloride as the activator or using alumina powder as the inert filler oxide. Final Act. 3. To cure these deficiencies, the Examiner finds that Grisik, like Schaeffer, discloses diffusion coating chromium into metal alloys. Final Act. 3; Grisik 1: 18-30. Grisik teaches using a powdered mixture that includes chromium powder, a halide salt activator, such as ammonium chloride (like Schaeffer) or chromium (III) chloride, and an inert powder filler, such as alumina. Final Act. 3; Grisik 2: 15-21. Based on Grisik' s teachings, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used chromium (III) chloride as the halide activator and alumina as the inert oxide filler material in Schaeffer's process because Grisik teaches that those materials are effective for diffusion chromiding a substrate using chromium powder in a container with a non-oxidizing atmosphere, such as H2. Final Act. 3. Additionally, the Examiner acknowledges that Schaeffer does not specifically teach that its non-oxidizing atmosphere of argon gas carries the chromium-containing remnant vapors away from the mixture thereby reducing deposition of the chromium-containing remnant vapors on a lateral portion next to the diffusion coated localized surface. Final Act. 4. To cure this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Pfaendtner, like Schaeffer and Grisik, disclose diffusion coating only localized regions of turbine engine airfoils. Final Act. 4; Pfaendtner, Abstract. Pfaendtner teaches that various masking techniques prevent the precursor material from contacting other regions of the article that are lateral and next to the deposition portion. Final 4 Appeal2017-005519 Application 13/536,141 Act. 4; Pfaendtner i-f 13. Pfaendtner teaches solid masks, like the masks disclosed in Schaeffer, as well as "flowing maskant gas," and also teaches that the masking techniques can be used alone or in combination. Id. Pfaendtner teaches that the flow of non-reactive gas sweeps away deposition gas vapors, minimizing any deposition onto the portions of the substrate where deposition is not desired. Final Act. 4; Pfaendtner i-f 40. Based on Pfaendtner' s teachings, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used argon gas instead of or in addition to Schaeffer's masking layer to further localize the deposition ( contro 1 the lateral size of the diffusion coating), such that it not only keeps oxygen away from the article, but also carries away chromium vapors that may escape from the localized region to minimize, and thus to desirably eliminate, deposition of the chromium outside the portion of the article where deposition is desired. Final Act. 5. Appellants contend that they recognized that diffusion coating an article using a mixture of powders may cause "smearing" of the coating- where the chromium-containing remnant vapor generated during the process deposits on portions of the article outside of the portion onto which the solid mixture is applied, such as lateral portions next to the portion that has the mixture. Appeal Br. 3. This "smearing" makes it difficult to control the size of the diffusion coating to the desired area. Id. Appellants argue that because the cited references do not recognize such a challenge with a coating mixture, there is no reason to combine the references to arrive at Appellants' method of diffusion coating an article. Id. at 4. Appellants further argue that the failure in the cited art to recognize "smearing" as a 5 Appeal2017-005519 Application 13/536,141 challenge in diffusion coating an article is highlighted by the cited art's failure to teach the use of an argon-based gas as in claim 1 's method. Id. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. "[T]he skilled artisan need not be motivated to combine [the prior art] for the same reason contemplated by [the inventor]." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor."). Pfaendtner teaches using a "flowing maskant gas," such as an argon-based gas, to sweep away deposition gas vapors, minimizing any deposition onto the portions of the substrate where deposition is not desired. Pfaendtner i-f 40. Pfaendtner teaches that "flowing maskant gas" is one of a number of masking techniques, including a solid mask (barrier) as disclosed in Schaeffer. Id. i-f 13. Pfaendtner teaches that the masking techniques can be used alone or in combination. Id. The Examiner has identified a reason for using argon- based gas in Schaeffer's method-to further localize the deposition (control the lateral size of the diffusion coating), such that it not only keeps oxygen away from the article, but also carries away chromium vapors that may escape from the localized region to minimize, and thus to desirably eliminate, deposition of the chromium outside the portion of the article where deposition is desired. Final Act. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's reasoning is erroneous. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's position that the use of argon-based gas in Schaeffer's process to 6 Appeal2017-005519 Application 13/536,141 carry away chromium-containing remnant vapors, thereby reducing deposition of chromium-containing remnant vapors portions of an article where deposition is not desired would have been no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (assessing the obviousness of claims to a combination of prior art elements by asking "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."). Appellants argue that neither Schaeffer nor Pfaendtner address "controlling lateral size of a diffusion coating deposited from a mixture." Appeal Br. 5. Thus, Appellants argue that the reasoning given in the rejection "'to desirably eliminate deposition of chromium outside the portion of the article where deposition is desired' ... does not come from the references and is based on Applicant's disclosure, which is improper hindsight." Id. at 5---6. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Although not explicitly described as "controlling lateral size of a diffusion coating deposited from a mixture," as the Examiner persuasively explains, localization of deposition on the substrate found in both of these references means defining a region (which has a lateral size) and controlling the deposition of the diffusion coating to match that region. Ans. 6. In other words, by teaching localized deposition, Schaeffer and Pfaendtner implicitly teach controlling the lateral size of the diffusion coating. Id.; In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264---65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). 7 Appeal2017-005519 Application 13/536,141 DECISION For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 21-27 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 8