Ex Parte DELVAUXDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 201914041262 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/041,262 09/30/2013 John McConnell DEL VAUX 13152 7590 05/01/2019 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 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. 261816/22113-0161 4840 EXAMINER LAMBERT, WAYNE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2019 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 JOHN McCONNELL DEL VAUX Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE General Electric Company ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-21, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. General Electric Company is the applicant, as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's disclosed invention relates to "manufactured components and a process of using manufactured components." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 7, 10, and 21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A ceramic matrix composite component, comprising: a ceramic matrix composite material; an environmental barrier coating applied over the ceramic matrix composite material; and a hard wear coating applied over the environmental barrier coating, the hard wear coating being silicon carbide, wherein the environmental barrier coating protects the ceramic matrix composite material from volatilization or deterioration. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Bruce us 5,683,825 Nov. 4, 1997 Lane US 6,929,852 B2 Aug. 16, 2005 Strangman US 7,510,370 B2 Mar. 31, 2009 Cybulsky US 8,124,252 B2 Feb.28,2012 Ward US 8,177,494 B2 May 15, 2012 2 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1, 3-6, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lane and Bruce. Final Act. 4--8. II. Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lane, Bruce, and Strangman. Id. at 8-10. III. Claims 10, 11, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, and Bruce. Id. at 11-15. IV. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, Bruce, and Ward. Id. at 15-16. V. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, Bruce, Ward, and Cybulsky. Id. at 16-18. ANALYSIS Rejection I- Claims 1, 3-6, and 21 as unpatentable over Lane and Bruce Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 21 together as a group. See Appeal Br. 5-7. We select claim 1 as representative of the issues that Appellant presents together, and claims 3-6 and 21 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner found that Lane teaches a ceramic matrix composite component comprising, inter alia, an environmental barrier coating (i.e. 14, ... which include[ s] mullite or zirconia, see col 1, 1157-66 and col 3, 1141-57 ... ) 3 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 applied over the ceramic matrix composite material 12; and a hard wear coating (i.e. 20, which protects the under [ environmental barrier coating] layer from at least water erosion, see col 3, 11 62-65) applied over the environmental barrier coating 14. Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledged that "Lane does not explicitly disclose the hard wear coating being silicon carbide." Id. However, the Examiner found that Bruce teaches a "hard wear coating (i.e. erosion- resistant composition 24) being silicon carbide (see abstract)." Id. at 5. The Examiner concluded that, given the teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to modify Lane so that the hard wear coating is silicon carbide, as recited in the claim. Id. The Examiner reasoned that such a modification would be no more than Id. a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, the use of alumina as a hard wear coating, see Lane col 3, 1166-67 and Bruce abstract) for another (in this case, the use of silicon carbide as a hard wear coating, see Bruce abstract ... ) to obtain predictable results (in this case, protection of the under layer of thermal or environmental barrier coating from erosion). Appellant argues that "Lane and Bruce teach away from the use of [ silicon carbide] as an outermost layer, except when being deposited on [a] micro-structured columnar [yttria-stabilized zirconia] layer." Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant asserts that Lane teaches that, in a combustion environment, silica-based non-oxide ceramic materials such as silicon carbide require an environmental barrier coating to protect the material from oxidation and degradation. See id. at 5 ( citing Lane, col. 1, 11. 45--49, 59-61 ). Appellant also asserts that Bruce teaches that using silicon carbide as an outer wear surface for a thermal barrier coating is undesirable because 4 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 silicon carbide readily oxidizes and promotes spallation. See id. at 6 ( citing Bruce, col. 6, 11. 29--40). According to Appellant, "a person skilled in the art would use [ silicon carbide] as an outermost layer only when silicon carbide is deposited on [a] micro-structured columnar [yttria-stabilized zirconia] layer." Id. (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by this line of argument because Appellant does not persuasively explain why a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the references, would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by Appellant. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Lane discloses, in the background, that structural ceramic technology for gas turbine engines relies on silica-based materials. Silica-based non-oxides such as silicon carbide (SiC) and silicon nitride (ShN4) are subject to both oxidation and attack by high temperature, high pressure water vapor. In this dual degradation mechanism, the silicon carbide or silicon nitride is oxidized to form a thermally grown oxide (Si02) layer. This oxide layer then reacts with the high temperature, high pressure water vapor to form a volatile hydroxide species [Si(OH)x] which is then lost to the environment. Thus, surface recession occurs in a continual process as the protective Si02 layer volatizes and the base ceramic oxidizes to replenish the lost Si02. This process is enhanced by the high velocity gas stream in a gas turbine environment. Accordingly, environmental barrier coatings (EBC) have been developed to protect silica-based non-oxide ceramics from the combustion environment. Lane, col. 1, 11. 45-61. To address this degradation concern, Lane discloses "[a]n alumina ... composition ... used as a protective overlayer coating material for ceramics and ceramic matrix composite materials with thermal insulation layers." Id., col. 3, 11. 16-20. In particular, Lane discloses that gas turbine engine 5 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 component 10 is formed of a ceramic matrix composite material substrate 12 that is thermally protected by ceramic insulating coating 14. Id., 11. 42--44; see also id., 11. 47-50 ("Ceramic insulating coating 14 is advantageously an oxide based ceramic including a matrix material 16 surrounding a plurality of mullite spheres 18 .... An optional oxygen barrier layer 34, illustrated in FIG. 2, may also be used.") (boldface omitted). A protective overlayer 20, such as alumina, "is disposed over the ceramic insulating coating 14 to isolate the ceramic insulating coating 14 from water vapor contained in the hot gas environment in which component 10 is designed to operate." Id., 11. 62---65 (boldface omitted). Here, Appellant does not persuasively explain why the cited disclosure of Lane criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the Examiner's proposed modification of Lane's protective overlayer 20 to use silicon carbide in place of alumina. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed). Although Lane discloses that underlying structural components made of silicon carbide (such as ceramic matrix composite substrate 12) are susceptible to oxidation and degradation and require environmental barrier coatings for protection (see Lane, col. 1, 11. 45---61 ), Appellant does not persuasively explain why such disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages modifying Lane to use silicon carbide as the overlying hard wear layer (i.e., protective overlayer 20) over the environmental barrier coating (i.e., ceramic insulating coating 14). 6 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 Bruce discloses "a thermal barrier coating which is adapted to be formed on an article subjected to a hostile thermal environment while subjected to erosion by particles and debris, as is the case with turbine, combustor and augmentor components of a gas turbine engine." Bruce, col. 3, 11. 36-40. In particular, Bruce discloses that erosion-resistant thermal barrier coating system 20 comprises ceramic layer 30 over bond layer 26. See id., col. 4, 11. 47-55. "To achieve a substantially greater level of erosion resistance, the ceramic layer 30 of this invention is protected by an impact and erosion-resistant composition that can ... overlay the ceramic layer 30 as a wear coating 24." Id., col. 5, 11. 52-55 (boldface omitted). Bruce discloses that "[t]he erosion-resistant composition is either alumina (Ab03) or silicon carbide (SiC), while a preferred ceramic layer is yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ)." Id., col. 3, 11. 48-50 (emphasis added). Given Bruce's disclosure that alumina and silicon carbide are both suitable materials for erosion-resistant wear coating 24 (see Bruce, col. 3, 11. 48--49, col. 6, 11. 9-11 ), the reference does not teach away from using silicon carbide as a hard wear coating in place of the alumina in Lane. Further, although Bruce discloses a preferred embodiment using columnar yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic layer 30 under silicon carbide wear coating 24, Appellant does not identify, nor do we discern, any disclosure in Bruce that silicon carbide would be suitable as a hard wear layer only when used in combination with a columnar yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic layer, as Appellant urges. See Appeal Br. 6. It is well established that the disclosure of a particular embodiment, even a preferred embodiment, in the prior art-absent such criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging-is not a teaching away. See DyStar Textilfarben 7 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists."). Appellant argues that "a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to use a combination of [silicon carbide] and [thermal barrier coating] micro-structured columnar [yttria-stabilized zirconia] layer to protect [ ceramic matrix composite] due to the porous structure of [ thermal barrier coating] micro-structured columnar [yttria-stabilized zirconia] layer." Appeal Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellant asserts that a thermal barrier coating "micro-structured columnar [yttria-stabilized zirconia] layer having porosity and microcracks due to its structure, however, would not protect a [ ceramic matrix composite] substrate from volatilization and deterioration due to oxidation and high pressure water vapor and thus would not read on claims 1 and 21." Id. at 6 ( citing Bruce, col. 3, 11. 23-26; Declaration of inventor John Delvaux, dated May 5, 2017 ("Delvaux Declaration")). We are not persuaded by this argument because it appears to rely on bodily incorporation of specific structural details of Bruce (i.e., a layer of columnar yttria-stabilized zirconia) into Lane, which is neither the standard for an obviousness determination, nor is it an accurate characterization of the rejection presented. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). As discussed supra, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Lane by simply substituting Bruce's silicon carbide hard wear coating for Lane's alumina protective overlayer. See Final Act. 5. The rejection presented did not propose modifying Lane to include Bruce's columnar yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic layer. In this regard, Appellant's arguments and evidence regarding the use of a columnar yttria-stabilized 8 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 zirconia ceramic layer in Lane (see Appeal Br. 6; Delvaux Declaration ,r,r 12-13) are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner and, thus, do not apprise us of error. Appellant further argues that "the combination of Lane and Bruce is improper and a result of improper hindsight reconstruction without the articulation of a technical basis based on the disclosures of the applied art." Reply Br. 3. Appellant asserts that the Examiner has provided no evidence that using silicon carbide as the outermost layer would yield predictable results. Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner explains, Lane discloses that it was known to protect underlying silicon carbide substrates with an environmental barrier coating and an alumina protective overlayer, and Bruce discloses that it was known to use either alumina or silicon carbide as a protective overlayer in a gas turbine engine. See Ans. 2; see also Bruce, col. 3, 11. 40-49, col. 6, 11. 9-11 (disclosing that that erosion-resistant wear coating 24 may be alumina or silicon carbide). In other words, Bruce provides evidence that silicon carbide would be a suitable substitute for alumina as a hard wear coating, thereby supporting the Examiner's reasoning that the proposed substitution of Bruce's silicon carbide for Lane's alumina would likely yield predictable results. Moreover, Appellant does not identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant's disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (so long as a conclusion of obviousness is based on a reconstruction that "takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge 9 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 gleaned only from [Appellant's] disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper"). Thus, Appellant's assertion of improper hindsight is unsupported. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3---6 and 21 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lane and Bruce. Rejection II- Claims 7-9 as unpatentable over Lane, Bruce, and Strangman In contesting the rejection of independent claim 7, Appellant relies on the same arguments set forth with respect to independent claim 1 subject to Rejection I. See Appeal Br. 8-10 (asserting that Lane and Bruce teach away from using silicon carbide as an outermost layer, except when deposited over a columnar yttria-stabilized zirconia layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Lane to include a combination of silicon carbide over a columnar yttria-stabilized zirconia layer to protect ceramic matrix composite). For the same reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, discussed supra, these arguments likewise do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 7. Appellant also asserts that Strangman does not cure the asserted deficiencies of Lane and Bruce. See id. at 10 ( asserting that "there is nothing in Strangman that teaches or suggests any of the limitations in independent claim 7 not taught or suggested by Lane and/or Bruce"). However, as we do not find a deficiency in the combination of Lane and Bruce, this argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. 10 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 7, and of claims 8 and 9, for which Appellant does not present separate arguments, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lane, Bruce, and Strangman. Rejection III - Claims 10, 11, and 16--20 as unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, and Bruce In contesting the rejection of independent claim 10, Appellant relies on the same arguments set forth with respect to independent claim 1 subject to Rejection I. See id. at 10-13 (asserting that Lane and Bruce teach away from using silicon carbide as an outermost layer, except when deposited over a columnar yttria-stabilized zirconia layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Lane to include a combination of silicon carbide over a columnar yttria-stabilized zirconia layer to protect ceramic matrix composite). For the same reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, discussed supra, these arguments likewise do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 10, and of claims 11, and 16-20, for which Appellant does not present separate arguments, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, and Bruce. 11 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 Rejections IV and V - Claims 12-15 as unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, Bruce, and one or more of Ward and Cybulsky With respect to the rejections of claims 12-15, Appellant does not set forth any additional substantive arguments separate from the arguments discussed supra; instead adding only that each of Ward and Cybulsky does not cure the asserted deficiencies in the combination of Strangman, Lane, and Bruce, and otherwise relying on dependency from independent claim 10. See id. at 13-14. Thus, for the same reasons that Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of base claim 10, Appellant also does not apprise us of error in Rejections IV and V. Accordingly, we likewise sustain the rejections of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, Bruce, and one or more of Ward and Cybulsky. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lane and Bruce. We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lane, Bruce, and Strangman. We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 11, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, and Bruce. We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, Bruce, and Ward. 12 Appeal2018-006852 Application 14/041,262 We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman, Lane, Bruce, Ward, and Cybulsky. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation