Ex Parte Taylor

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2017

12834042 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2017)

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.
12/834,042 07/12/2010 Thomas Alan Taylor 093003-US-Rl 7744
27182 7590
PRAXAIR, INC.
LAW DEPARTMENT
10 RIVER VIEW DRIVE
DANBURY, CT 06810-5113
EXAMINER
BROWN, ADAM WAYNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2017 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 THOMAS ALAN TAYLOR
Appeal 2016-003926
Application 12/834,042
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 2—5, 7—16, 18—27, and 30-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-003926
Application 12/834,042
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to gas turbine engine seal system with a
coating system. Claims 2 and 43 are independent. Claim 2, reproduced
below with paragraphs added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. A gas turbine engine seal system comprising a rotating
member having
an abrasive tip surface disposed in rub relationship to a
stationary abradable seal surface,
wherein said abrasive tip surface comprises an abrasive
coating deposited onto at least a portion of the tip surface,
wherein said abrasive coating comprises a metallic alloy matrix
having ceramic abrasive particles at least partially embedded in
said matrix and at least some of the ceramic abrasive particles
projecting from said matrix;
wherein the ceramic abrasive particles comprise angular
ceramic abrasive particles of nominal size 4 to 15 mils;
wherein the ceramic abrasive particles have a product of
hardness (in Kg/mm2) and fracture toughness (in Mpa*m0.5)
that is greater than that for pure zirconia single crystals;
wherein said abradable seal surface comprises an
abradable ceramic coating deposited onto at least a portion of the
seal surface, wherein said ceramic coating is made from a
ceramic powder comprising ceramic powder macroparticles, said
ceramic powder macroparticles comprising
a stabilized zirconia component, [the] stabilized
zirconia component having a macrocracked
microstructure, or a zirconia-based component and an
(alumina + silica)-based component,
wherein said ceramic powder macroparticles
contain from about 10 to about 95 percent by weight of the
zirconia component or the zirconia-based component and
about 5 to about 90 percent by weight of the (alumina +
silica)-based component, and
wherein the average particle size (diameter) of the
ceramic powder macroparticles is from about 10 to about
150 microns;
2
Appeal 2016-003926
Application 12/834,042
wherein said gas turbine engine seal system has a tip-to-
seal wear ratio of at least about 1:10;
wherein the abradable ceramic coating has a density of
from about 45 to about 90 percent of theoretical; and
wherein the abradable ceramic coating has a thickness of
from about 0.02 to about 0.10 inches.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Matarese
Brennan
Taylor (“Taylor ’433”)
Maloney
Taylor (“Taylor ’658”)
Ohara
Sung
Braillard
Taylor (“Taylor ’493”)
US 4,588,607
US 4,704,332
US 5,073,433
US 6,365,236 B1
US 2003/0138658 A1
US 2004/0096318 A1
US 2005/0241239 A1
US 7,128,962 B2
WO 2007/053493 A1
May 13, 1986
Nov. 3, 1987
Dec. 17, 1991
Apr. 2, 2002
July 24, 2003
May 20, 2004
Nov. 3, 2005
Oct. 31,2006
May 10, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 2—5, 7—19, 27, and 30-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Ohara, Taylor ’658, Taylor ’493, and
Maloney.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ohara, Taylor ’658, Taylor ’493, Maloney, and Matarese.
Claims 24—26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ohara, Taylor ’658, Taylor ’493, Maloney and Braillard.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Ohara, Taylor ’658, Taylor ’493, and Maloney and Brennan
3
Appeal 2016-003926
Application 12/834,042
Claims 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ohara, Taylor ’658, Taylor 493, Maloney, and Taylor 433.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Ohara, Taylor ’658, Taylor 493, Maloney, and Sung.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Ohara, Taylor ’658, Taylor 493, Maloney, Sung, and Taylor 433.
OPINION
Preliminary Matters
The Examiner objects to the numbering of claim 44 as claim 45, and
renumbers the claim as claim 44. Final Act. 3—4. We do not address the
merits of the objection because the Examiner's objection is a petitionable
matter—not an appealable matter. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.113(a), 1.181; see also
MPEP § 2163.06(11) and MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or
decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not
properly before the Board.”).
Claims 2—5, 7—27, and 30—42
Appellant argues claims 2—5, 7—19, 27, and 30-38 together. We
select independent claim 2 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)
(iv). Appellant also repeats these same arguments for the patentability of
claims 20—26 and 39-42. Thus, claims 20-26 and 39-42 also stand or fall
with claim 2.
Appellant argues that Ohara, Taylor ’658, Taylor 493, and Maloney,
alone or in combination do not “disclose or suggest an abrasive coating
having ceramic abrasive particles in which the ceramic abrasive particles
4
Appeal 2016-003926
Application 12/834,042
have a unique product of hardness (in Kg/mm2) and fracture toughness (in
Mpa*m0.5) that is greater than that for pure zirconia single crystals, as . . .
claimed.” Br. 8. The Examiner previously found that Ohara’s teaching of
diamond abrasive particle satisfies this claim limitation. Final Act. 3,5; see
also Ans. 21. Appellant provides no analysis or response as to why diamond
abrasive particles would not satisfy the claim limitation. Thus, we are not
informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant also argues that Ohara teaches away from the claimed
limitation of “angular ceramic abrasive particles of nominal size 4 to 15 mils
(i.e., about 101 pm to about 381 pm).” Br. 7. This is because Ohara teaches
that “[t]he average particle diameter of the protruding particles 19a is
preferably not smaller than 150 pm and not larger than 200 pm, and the
average particle diameter of the embedded particles 19b is preferably not
smaller than 80 pm and not larger than 150 pm.” Id. (citing Ohara 133).
Both of Ohara’s ranges, cited by Appellant, are within or overlap with
the claimed range. Final Act. 2. This is all that is required to find that the
prior art teaches or discloses the recited limitation. Titanium Metals Corp. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d
676, 682 (CCPA 1962)) (“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise,
a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them
is in the prior art.”) (emphasis in original).
For these reasons we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
5
Appeal 2016-003926
Application 12/834,042
Claims 43 and 44
Claim 44 depends from independent claim 43. Appellant argues the
patentability of claim 43 and then repeats these same arguments for the
patentability of claim 44.1 Thus, claim 44 stands or falls with claim 43.
Appellant argues that the cited references do not
disclose or suggest the unique combination of an abrasive
coating on a rotating member tip surface and an abradable
ceramic coating on a stationary abradable seal surface, in which
the abrasive coating is a metallic alloy matrix having sapphire
particles embedded in the matrix and at least some of the
sapphire particles projecting from the matrix, and in which the
abradable ceramic coating has a density from about 45 to about
90 percent of theoretical, a thickness from about 0.02 to about
0.10 inches, and is deposited onto a macrocracked ceramic
coating that has been deposited onto the seal surface.
Br. 19. Appellant further states that the cited references “are silent with
respect to [this] unique combination” and that they do not recognize the
problem. Id.
The Examiner’s rejection and Answer both outline in detail how the
combination of prior art references suggest this combination of features.
Final Act. 19—23; Ans. 23—25. Other than making broad assertions,
Appellant provides no analysis or response as to why the Examiner’s
detailed findings and determination are incorrect. Thus, we are not informed
of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
1 Appellant refers to claim 44 as claim 45 over the objection of the
Examiner. Br. 4—5.
6
Appeal 2016-003926
Application 12/834,042
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—5, 7—16, 18—27, and 30-44 are
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7