UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2021

2020004911 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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. 15/022,588 03/17/2016 Paul Sheedy 62344US02; 67097-2638PUS1 3189 54549 7590 08/02/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER HORNING, JOEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ptodocket@cgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL SHEEDY, WAYDE R. SCHMIDT, TANIA BHATIA KASHYAP, JAMES T. BEALS, and NEAL MAGDEFRAU Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 2 DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 6, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to producing a ceramic article. Spec. ¶¶ 3–5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix, 6): 1. A method of producing a ceramic article, the method comprising: providing a mixture of a particulate of solid silicon monoxide dispersed in a polymeric carrier phase; vacuum infiltrating the mixture into pores of a porous structure having a free-carbon-containing material; heating the porous structure that has the mixture to vaporize the particulate of solid silicon monoxide and thereby provide gaseous silicon monoxide, the gaseous silicon monoxide reacting with the free carbon of the free-carbon- containing material to form silicon carbide, wherein the free 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed March 17, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed April 4, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed January 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed April 13, 2020 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed June 15, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 3 carbon is disposed on an external surface of a silicon carbide fiber in the porous structure. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kennedy et al. (“Kennedy”) US 5,682,594 October 28, 1997 Okada US 2001/0008651 A1 July 19, 2001 Liu et al. (“Liu”) US 2008/0179783 A1 July 31, 2008 Takagi US 2009/0220040 A1 September 3, 2009 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Takagi, Okada, Liu, and Kennedy. Final Act. 2–5. OPINION Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the claims subject to the rejection appealed. See Appeal Br. 3–5. We select claim 1 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner found Takagi discloses a method for producing a silicon carbide ceramic article including providing a structure of silicon carbide fiber coated with a layer of free carbon on its external surface, and exposing the structure to heated gaseous silicon monoxide in order to infiltrate it with silicon and convert the free carbon into silicon carbide. Final Act. 3. The Examiner further found Takagi exemplifies supplying the SiO gas by heating SiO gas in a furnace, but Takagi does not specifically Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 4 teach heating solid silicon monoxide to provide gaseous SiO for converting the carbon to SiC. Id. The Examiner found Okada discloses converting carbon to SiC in ceramic articles by reacting the carbon with silicon oxide gas, and further discloses heating solid silicon monoxide powder as a source material for the silicon oxide gas. Final Act. 3. As a result, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have used solid silicon monoxide to create the gaseous silicon monoxide in the process of Takagi, because doing so would produce no more than predictable results. Id. The Examiner also found Okada discloses dispersing silicon oxide particulate in a dispersing medium before impregnating the dispersion into the pores of a porous structural form. Final Act. 3. Therefore, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious to apply the silicon monoxide as a particulate dispersed in a coating impregnated into pores of the free carbon containing structure because Okada discloses an effective way to supply silicon monoxide vapors to the carbon structure in order to convert it to the desired silicon carbide. Id. However, the Examiner found Takagi and Okada do not disclose including a polymeric material carrier phase in the dispersion. Id. at 4. The Examiner found Liu discloses forming silicon carbide structures by reacting carbon structures in a fibrous body with silicon additives, where the silicon additives include silicon oxide powders and can also include using silicon containing polymers. Id. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to further include silicon polymers in the coating as a silicon source for the reaction, because such polymers are suitable additional sources for that purpose. Id. Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 5 The Examiner found Okada discloses impregnating the dispersion into the pores of the porous structural form, but it does not disclose preforming a vacuum filtration to impregnate the dispersion into the form. Final Act. 4. The Examiner found Kennedy discloses producing ceramic articles including providing filling material into a porous preform structure using a slurry infiltration process to add filling material into the preform structure. Id. The Examiner then found Kennedy discloses applying vacuum in order to help the slurry enter the void spaces between the fibers. Id. 4–5. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to apply a vacuum in the process of Takagi in view Okada in order to enhance the infiltration of the slurry material into the void spaces between the fibers in view of Kennedy. Id. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination is improper because Liu discloses mixing together carbon fibers and additives for extrusion, and not a dispersing medium for infiltrating silicon monoxide into a porous structure. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in characterizing Liu as relating to a similar type of coating process as disclosed in Okada, because Okada discloses impregnating a dispersion into a pre-existing structure and Liu discloses mixing starting materials in order to later make a structure. Id. Appellant contends Kennedy discloses vacuum infiltration of fillers dispersed in a preceramic polymer for additional fillers, not reactive fillers. Id. Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 6 Issue Did Appellant demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position that vacuum infiltrating a mixture of particulate solid silicon monoxide dispersed in a polymeric carrier phase as recited in claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Takagi, Okada, Liu, and Kennedy? Discussion We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Takagi discloses pyrolytic carbon is deposited in interstices between SiC fibers, where the carbon is then converted to SiC by reaction with SiO gas generated from a source mounted in a reaction furnace. Takagi ¶¶ 61–65. Similarly, Okada’s carbon fibers may be reacted with a reactive gas generated from blocks or powders of silicon or silicon oxide in a reaction chamber. Okada ¶¶ 38, 40. Okada discloses solid silicon monoxide powder may also be used to provide a source of silicon for conversion of carbon to silicon carbide. Id. at ¶¶ 40– 42. Okada discloses silicon oxide powders may be impregnated into structures “by using an appropriate dispersing medium.” Id. at ¶ 40. Okada further discloses the silicon oxide powder may also be a mixed powder of silicon and silicon monoxide. Okada ¶ 41. Liu discloses silicon oxide particles as part of a process including reacting silicon oxide with carbon fibers to form silicon carbide fibers when heated under appropriate temperature and environmental conditions. Liu ¶ 29. Liu also discloses “a chemical carrier, such as silicon-containing polymers, or solutions, etc, may also be used to provide silicon into the system to react with the carbon to form silicon carbide.” Id. at ¶¶ 27, 29. Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 7 Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 5), Liu does use its polymer for a dispersing medium. See Ans. 4. Although Appellant’s arguments, as discussed above, focus on Liu’s disclosure of obtaining a homogenous mass for extrusion as a point of difference between Liu and Okada (see also Reply Br. 2–3), Appellant fails to explain sufficiently why this difference would have meant that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered Liu’s use of a chemical carrier in providing silicon to a system as disclosed in Okada. As explained by the Examiner, Liu is relied upon for disclosing advantages of including polymeric carrier materials as Okada’s dispersing medium, and not for the particular method of mixing the dispersion with fibers or for extruding the fibers into a structure. Ans. 3–4; Advisory Action dated July 12, 2019, Continuation of Box 12. Thus, Liu relates to similar aspects of mixing silicon oxide with fibers for later conversion to SiC by reaction of silicon oxide with carbon as disclosed in Takagi and Okada. Liu informs the choice of the “dispersing medium” disclosed in Okada, particularly where Okada does not disclose a dispersing medium for the solid silicon oxide powder, and also discloses additional silicon materials beside silicon monoxide may be provided in order to react with carbon. In this case, providing the silicon containing polymers of Liu in combination with the silicon monoxide powder of Okada is consistent with the dispersing medium referenced in Okada, while at the same time provides an additional silicon source for converting the carbon material to SiC as stated by the Examiner (Final Act. 4). In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s statement that Okada Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 8 suggests water or ethyl alcohol as a dispersing medium for boron-containing particles. Appeal Br. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that because Kennedy discloses the use of vacuum for providing “additional filler” materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used a vacuum in assisting the delivery of silicon oxide in a dispersing medium into the fibers as in the combined teachings of Takagi, Okada, and Liu. Kennedy discloses vacuum may be used to assist in impregnating or delivering slurries, such as those containing preceramic polymers, into void spaces between fibers. Kennedy, col. 26, ll. 30–46. Appellant does not sufficiently explain the significance of Kennedy’s disclosure of an “additional filler” relative to Appellant’s silicon oxide as a “reactive filler” in applying a vacuum to assist in delivering a slurry containing a filler into void spaces between fibers. That is, as discussed above, Okada discloses dispersing mediums are used to impregnate silicon oxide powder into structures including carbon fibers. Okada ¶ 40. Thus, similar to Kennedy, Okada is concerned with delivering or impregnating filler-containing mediums into fiber materials, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Kennedy that a vacuum could be used to facilitate such a process. In KSR, the Supreme Court explained, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. Appeal 2020-004911 Application 15/022,588 9 Therefore, we are of the view that the Examiner’s position is supported by sufficient reasoning. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 18. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 6, 18 103 Takagi, Okada, Liu, Kennedy 1, 5, 6, 18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED