Ex Parte Strock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 2014

11776082 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014)

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. 11/776,082 07/11/2007 Christopher W. Strock 67097-822; PA-0004382-US 6171 54549 7590 05/22/2014 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global P.O. Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER MCNEIL, JENNIFER C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2014 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 and SUSAN M. THOLEN ____________ Appeal 2012-006181 Application 11/776,082 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 17-20, 21-23, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A composite article comprising: a substrate comprising a first metallic material having a nominal composition: a bond coat disposed on the substrate, the bond coat comprising a second metallic material having the nominal composition of the first metallic material with regard to at least the kinds of elements in the first metallic material; and Appeal 2012-006181 Application 11/776,082 2 a ceramic top coat disposed on the bond coat. The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of the appealed claims: Slepitis U.S. 3,420,716 Jan. 7, 1969 Tsantrizos EP 0 935 010 A1 Aug. 11, 1999 Gregory WO 2006/076000 A2 Jul. 20, 2006 Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a composite article comprising a substrate comprising a first metallic material, a bond coat comprising a second metallic material, and a ceramic top coat. The second metallic material of the bond coat has the nominal composition of the first metallic material with regard to at least the kinds of elements. Both metallic materials are nickel alloys. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10-12, 17, 21-23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being anticipated by Gregory. Claims 6, 10-12, 17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gregory in view of Slepitis. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory in view of Tsantrizos. We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially the reasons expressed in the Answer. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual finding that Gregory, like Appellants, describes a substrate comprising a nickel alloy, and a bond coat comprising a nickel alloy which has all the elements of the substrate Appeal 2012-006181 Application 11/776,082 3 alloy, in addition to the element Y. It is Appellants’ position that the recited claim language on appeal requires the bond coat to comprise only the same elements of the substrate alloy, thereby excluding the Y of Gregory. We do not agree. We are in full agreement with the Examiner the claim language associated with “nominal composition” does not limit the second metallic material to comprising only the elements of the substrate alloy. The Specification does not define the term “nominal composition” as such, and we agree with the Examiner that a reasonable interpretation in context is that the second metallic material has the same kinds of materials as the substrate alloy, namely, metallic elements like those of Gregory’s bond coat, including Y. Certainly, Appellants have had ample opportunity to clarify the ambiguity of the recited language, such as, for example, by using the traditional patent parlance “consisting of.” We also find no error in the Examiner’s rationale with respect to separately argued claims 11 and 12 that it is reasonable to conclude that the polished substrate of Gregory has a surface roughness less than that of the bond coat. Appellants have not offered a convincing argument, or evidence, which demonstrates otherwise. As a final point, Appellants base no argument on objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results. In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections. Appeal 2012-006181 Application 11/776,082 4 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). AFFIRMED cam