Ex Parte Stiles et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

12008354 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 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.
12/008,354 01/10/2008 Eric Stiles Fraunhofer 4.1-2 9273
7590 11/27/2012
Butzel Long
Suite 1100
110 W. Michigan Ave.
Lansing, MI 48933
EXAMINER
HORNING, JOEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2012 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 ERIC STILES, THOMAS HIMMER,
JAMES E. HERBISON, and ANJA TECHEL
__________

Appeal 2011-011602
Application 12/008,354
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
9, 11-13, 15-17, 32, and 33. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a process for laser beam
hard coating of a ferrous metal substrate with diamond particles (Spec. para.
[0004]; Claims App’x claim 9).
Claim 9 is illustrative:
Appeal 2011-011602
Application 12/008,354

2
9. A process for producing an article of manufacture with a hard faced
surface coating of diamond particles in a metal matrix providing abrasion
resistance, which comprises:
(a) providing a ferrous substrate containing carbon and requiring the
hard faced surface coating in an apparatus which delivers a laser beam on
one axis with a separate nozzle which delivers a composition for producing
the coating on the substrate at a second angle to the one axis of the laser
beam;
(b) feeding a particulate mixture of diamond particles and metal
particles as the composition which can be melted to provide the matrix
around the diamond particles into a heating zone produced by the laser beam
through conical annular gaps around a nozzle tip positioned adjacent the
substrate thereby expanding the composition from the nozzle while
impacting the mixture with the laser beam in a
non-reactive atmosphere onto the substrate from the nozzle in front of the
laser beam so as to form a first track of the hard faced surface coating with
the metal bonded to the substrate and to the diamond particles with rapid
cooling of the matrix; and
(c) forming multiple tracks of the coating overlapping a part of the
first track width of the first track with rapid cooling of the matrix to form the
article of manufacture, wherein the process of steps (a) and (b) is conducted
at a temperature between about 400°C and 900°C so as to melt the matrix
and bond the diamond particles and the matrix to the substrate, and where
the rapid cooling is such that decomposition of the diamond particles by the
melt is prevented.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 9, 11-13, 15-17, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Boyer (US 6,146,473 issued November 14,
2000) in view of Nowotny (US 6,316,744 B1 issued November 13,
2001), Andrews (US 6,485,532 B2 issued November 26, 2002) and
Whitney (US 5,043,548 issued August 27, 1991).
Appeal 2011-011602
Application 12/008,354

3
2. Claims 9 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boyer in view of Andrews and Lin (Concentration
Mode of the Powder Stream in Coaxial Laser Cladding, Optics &
Laser Technology 31 (1991) 251-257).

Appellants’ arguments focus on claim 9 (App. Br. 13-18).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the combined
teachings of Boyer, Nowotny, Andrews and Whitney or the combined
teachings of Boyer, Lin and Andrews would have rendered obvious the
process of claim 9? We decide this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner’s rejections are stated on pages 3-13 of the Answer.
The Examiner finds that Boyer teaches the general process as claimed except
for the nozzle arrangement that includes the expansion of the coating
material from the nozzle and the metal matrix material having a melt
temperature between 400 to 900°C (Ans. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11). The Examiner
finds that Nowotny or Lin teaches a coaxial nozzle that satisfies the claimed
nozzle arrangement for the laser and coating material delivery (Ans. 4-5,
10). The Examiner finds that Andrews teaches a copper-tin-titanium metal
matrix for holding abrasive particles that melts within the claimed
temperature range (Ans. 6-7, 11-12). The Examiner finds that Whitney
teaches positioning the focal point of the laser above the substrate to melt the
Appeal 2011-011602
Application 12/008,354

4
cladding material above the substrate prior to deposition while avoiding
damage to the microstructure of the substrate (Ans. 5).
Based on these findings the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to combine Nowotny’s or Lin’s nozzle arrangement with
Boyer’s process in order to provide a uniform flow of powder in all
directions (i.e., omnidirectional) on the substrate (Ans. 5, 10). The
Examiner concludes that the combination of Andrews’ composite material
with a lower melting temperature with Boyer’s process would have been
obvious to provide a stiffer coating material suitable for cutting tools and to
provide greater cutting accuracy while avoiding degradation over the time
period that it is at elevated temperatures (Ans. 7, 11, 12). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to combine Whitney’s
positioning of the laser focal point above the substrate to avoid damage to
the microstructure of the substrate (Ans. 6).
Appellants argue that Notwotny’s or Lin’s1 nozzle that coaxially
supplies the powder coating material and the laser light fail to teach the
claim requirement that a separate nozzle deliver the powder coating
composition at a second angle to the one axis of the laser beam (App. Br. 13-
14, 17). Appellants contend that Nowotny’s use of an angled annular gap 14
that delivers the powder means that vector resolution of the powder motion
after expulsion from the angled passage includes both a vector normal and
parallel to the laser axis direction (App. Br. 14). Appellants contend that the
particle-averaged contribution of the vector components moves away from
the nozzle in a parallel direction to the laser light. Id.

1 Regarding Lin, Appellants rely on the same arguments made regarding
Nowotny (App. Br. 17).
Appeal 2011-011602
Application 12/008,354

5
Appellants’ arguments regarding the nozzle arrangement are not
persuasive because Appellants disclose that Nowotny’s nozzle arrangement
is the preferred coating head used by Appellants as noted by the Examiner
(Spec. para. [0030], Ans. 13-14). Accordingly, we fail to see how
Nowotny’s or Lin’s nozzle configuration would not satisfy the claim
requirement regarding the laser and coating material directions.
Appellants argue that there is no reason why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have incorporated Andrews’ material into Boyer’s process
(App. Br. 16). Appellants contend that Andrews is directed to a monolithic
abrasive wheel composition formed by molding at a pressure and
temperature, not a cladding composition and there is no teaching in Andrews
that the material could be heated to form a coating or cladding on a substrate
(App. Br. 16).
The Examiner finds that Andrews teaches a suitable reactive metal
matrix-abrasive coating composition that may be used in lieu of iron and
diamond composites such as taught by Boyer because the reactive metal
forms a stronger bond with the diamond abrasive material (Ans. 15). The
Examiner further finds that Appellants’ arguments about the different
formation methods are not persuasive because Boyer’s laser would have
been able to melt and deposit either metal alloy particulate (i.e., Boyer’s
iron-based or Andrews’ Cu-Sn-Ti alloy) to form a diamond metal composite
(Ans. 16).
Appellants do not respond to these reasonable findings of the
Examiner. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence favors the
Examiner’s undisputed finding that based upon the teachings of the
references one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Andrews’
Appeal 2011-011602
Application 12/008,354

6
composite metal matrix-abrasive composition as a suitable substitute for
Boyer’s iron-based metal matrix abrasive composition.
Appellants further argue that substituting Andrews’ metal-matrix
composition for Boyer’s iron-based metal matrix material would have
frustrated Boyer’s intended purpose of forming a metallurgical bond
between the metal matrix material with the abrasive grains and the substrate
(App. Br. 16). Appellants contend that Boyer teaches melting the substrate
to form a metallurgical bond between the melted substrate surface and the
metal matrix material, but using Andrews’ metal matrix with a lower
melting temperature would not result in a melted steel substrate surface and
thus not form the metallurgical bond. Id.
The Examiner finds that as evidenced by Whitney the bond between
the Andrews’ material and Boyer’s unmelted substrate would have been
sufficient to operate as a wear resistant abrasive layer and thus perform
Boyer’s purpose (Ans. 16). The Examiner finds that Whitney demonstrates
that a strong bond between a metal matrix material with abrasive and
substrate may be formed without the melting the substrate and destroying the
microstructure of the underlying layer (Ans. 16-17). The Examiner finds
that to form a metallurgical bond very clean surfaces of the metal substrate
and metal matrix material are required (Ans. 17).
Appellants do not respond to any of these reasonable findings of the
Examiner based upon the teaching of the references as a whole. As the
Examiner finds, Whitney teaches that laser-plasma spray that melts the metal
matrix material before application to the substrate provides advantage over
laser welding that melts the substrate to form a pool of material. The
undisputed teachings would have suggested the modification of Boyer with a
Appeal 2011-011602
Application 12/008,354

7
reasonable expectation of achieving a suitable metallurgical bond.
Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion.
On this record and for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s §
103 rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

sld