Ex Parte Strock

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 5, 2018

13632657 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 13/632,657 10/01/2012 Christopher W. Strock 60233US01 (12-266) 2844 52237 7590 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. 900 Chapel St., Suite 1201 New Haven, CT 06510 03/05/2018 EXAMINER BROWN, ADAM WAYNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/05/2018 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 CHRISTOPHER W. STROCK Appeal 2017-001005 Application 13/632,6571 Technology Center 3700 Before: LISA M. GUIJT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—21. Claim 4 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies United Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2017-001005 Application 13/632,657 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A turbo-machine comprising: a seal mating to a plurality of airfoils; and said seal being formed from an abradable aluminum based material having a plurality of hard phase particles embedded therein and having a melting point higher than the melting point of the abradable coating matrix alloy, wherein said abradable aluminum based material is characterized by the absence of any solid lubricant in the aluminum based material. 14. A seal material comprising an abradable aluminum based material containing from 40 to 60 vol% aluminum and having a plurality of hard phase particles embedded therein and said hard phase particles being present in an amount less than 10 vol% of the aluminum based material. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1—3 and 5—13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Kusui et al. (US 5,435,825; iss. July 25, 1995) and Fiala et al. (US 6,887,530 B2; iss. May 3, 2005). Claims 14—21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Fiala and Kusui. ANALYSIS Appellant’s Specification explains that turbomachines such as gas turbine engines can accumulate material on the tips of compressor blades, resulting in increased wear and decreased efficiency. Spec. Tflf 1—2. Appellant’s invention relates to use of an aluminum-based abradable 2 Appeal 2017-001005 Application 13/632,657 material in a seal of a turbomachine to remove such buildup from the tips of the blades. Spec. 1, 38—40. In relevant part, claim 1 recites a seal formed from an abradable aluminum material “characterized by the absence of any solid lubricant in the aluminum based material.” The Examiner finds Fiala teaches a seal for a gas turbine engine, but the Examiner notes that Fiala’s seal is made of a combination of a metal matrix, ceramic particles, and a solid lubricant. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds Kusui generally teaches an aluminum-based abradable material with “no mention of [a] solid lubricant.” Ans. 8—9 (citing Fiala 1:13-65, 2:30—40, 3:12-35, 4:26-28; Kusui 1:14-53, 1:67-2:3, and 2:27—3:15); accord Final Act. 5—6. Appellant argues Fiala teaches away from the claimed invention because, according to Appellant, Fiala describes a seal that requires solid lubricants. Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2. As noted by Appellant (Appeal Br. 9 (citing Fiala 3:10—16, 4:30-35)), Fiala describes a three-component seal comprised of a metal-alloy matrix, a ceramic component, and a solid lubricant, explaining that “the three components provide a synergism in abradable coatings which have unexpected superior characteristics over prior art materials” (Fiala 3:10—16). Further, Fiala consistently describes the importance of its solid lubricant, stating for example, “[t]he metal alloy matrix would collapse and compress during the rubbing process without the presence of the ceramic and solid lubricant filler.” Fiala 4:32—35. Although the Examiner cites Kusui as evidence that “it was known in the art to use coatings consisting of a metal matrix and ceramic particles” (Ans. 8 (citing Kusui 1:27—53)), the Examiner recognizes that Kusui does not specifically teach that its coatings would be useful in turbine engines, 3 Appeal 2017-001005 Application 13/632,657 with Kusui instead describing its coatings generally as useful in “mechanical applications.” Ans. 9. According to the Examiner, “[t]he proposed modification is to use the coating of Kusui in a location opposite the tips of turbine blades, as taught by Fiala, and not that the components of the coatings of Kusui be altered to match those of Fiala.” Ans. 9. The Examiner states that “Fiala simply teaches a different type of coating, which would not deter one of ordinary skill from pursuing other types of coatings” (Final Act. 3), and the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify the coating of Kusui by using it as a blade seal as taught by Fiala for the purpose of forming a seal material with desirable properties” (Final Act. 6 (citing Fiala 2:14—18; Kusui 1:67—2:3)). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 1. In light of Fiala’s express statements that solid lubricants are critical to the seals of turbine engines, the Examiner has not established that claim 1 would have been an obvious use of Kusui’s seal coatings in turbine engines as described in Fiala. Cf. Ans. 9 (“The proposed modification is to use the coatings of Kusui in a location opposite the tips of turbine blades, as taught by Fiala . . . .”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, nor the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5—13, which depend from claim 1. We find similar error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as obvious in view of Fiala and Kusui. Although claim 14 does not require a seal characterized by the absence of a solid lubricant, the Examiner’s reasoning that claim 14 is obvious because a person of ordinary skill would have “modif[ied] the coating of Fiala by varying the amount of ceramic particles and matrix constituents as taught by Kusui for the purpose of 4 Appeal 2017-001005 Application 13/632,657 altering the mechanical properties of the coating” (Final Act. 9) does not adequately support the conclusion of obviousness. See In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding error in an obviousness determination that lacked evidence of a reasonable expectation of success from varying components of the prior art). Without supporting evidence, the conclusion that claim 14 would have been an obvious modification of Fiala and Kusui amounts to a merely general statement that is inadequate to support the conclusion of obviousness, in particular because Fiala states that solid lubricants are critical to its application and Kusui includes no mention of solid lubricants. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in the rejection of independent claim 14, as well as the rejection of claims 15—21, which depend from claim 14. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—21. REVERSED 5