Ex Parte Newton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 2013

12166582 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013)

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. 12/166,582 07/02/2008 Kirk C. Newton PA0004597U;67097-1054PUS1 3926 54549 7590 11/13/2013 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2013 PAPERPAPER 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 KIRK C. NEWTON, ALAN D. CETEL, MARIO P. BOCHIECHIO, JAMES T. BEALS, and JOHN JOSEPH MARCIN ____________ Appeal 2012-007377 Application 12/166,582 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, GEORGE C. BEST, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007377 Application 12/166,582 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1 finally rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 12, 13, 16-20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as anticipated by EP ’775 (EP 1 839 775 A1, published Oct. 3, 2007), and claims 11, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over the EP ’775 patent.2, 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The invention relates to a casting system for use in investment casting processes. (Spec.4 [0001].) “Investment casting is a commonly used technique for forming metallic components having complex geometries, such as components of a gas turbine engine.” (Id. at [0003].) Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. A casting system, comprising: a core; a shell positioned relative to said core; and a barrier coating applied to each of said core and said shell, wherein an entire outer surface of said core is coated with said barrier coating. The Examiner finds EP ’775 Figure 6 describes a casting system comprising a core and shell “wherein an entire outer surface of [the] core is coated with [a] barrier coating” (claim 1 (emphasis added); see also, claims 13 and 23, the only other independent claims on appeal). Appellants argue EP ’775 cannot anticipate because the reference does not explicitly illustrate or describe the coating as being 1 Final Office Action mailed Jul. 13, 2011. 2 Appeal Brief filed Dec. 12, 2011 (“App. Br.”), 3. 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-13 and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over EP 1 524 045. (Answer mailed Feb. 10, 2012 (“Ans.”), 4. 4 Specification filed Jul. 2, 2008. Appeal 2012-007377 Application 12/166,582 3 on the top surface of the core. (App. Br. 3-4.) The Examiner maintains the rejections are proper because “it is believed that the top portion of the core of Figure 6 (including the surrounding coating) is ‘cut-off’ from view and the coating actually would cover the top surface.” (Ans. 9.) On this record, a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner’s finding of anticipation because Appellants have offered an equally, if not more plausible finding that EP ’775 Figure 6 depicts an entire cross-sectional view of a mold, i.e., one in which the top surface of the core is intact and is not coated with a barrier coating. (App. Br. 3-4; cf. EP ’775 [0015] (noting the face coat is applied to “a desired surface” of a mold structure).) Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 12, 13, 16-20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Because the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is likewise based on the same unsupported finding of fact (see Ans. 7-8), we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11, 21, and 22. REVERSED kmm