United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 4, 2021

2020002374 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 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. 15/159,296 05/19/2016 Thomas N. Slavens 92527US01; 67097-3374 PUS 1097 54549 7590 03/04/2021 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 EXAMINER YOON, KEVIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/04/2021 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 THOMAS N. SLAVENS, LEA KENNARD CASTLE, and JAMES TISLEY AUXIER1 ____________ Appeal 2020-002374 Application 15/159,296 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, BRIAN D. RANGE, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6, 8–11, 21, 24, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to investment casting. E.g., Spec. ¶ 1; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 8 (Claims 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Update to Real Party in Interest dated Apr. 23, 2020. Appeal 2020-002374 Application 15/159,296 2 Appendix) of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added): 1. An investment casting system comprising: a core having at least one fine detail, and wherein the core includes at least one additively manufactured component; a shell positioned relative to said core; and a strengthening coating applied at least to said at least one fine detail. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1–3, 5, and 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Newton (US 2010/0000698 A1, published Jan. 7, 2010). 2. Claims 1, 4–6, and 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Persky (US 7,207,374 B2, issued Apr. 24, 2007). 3. Claims 1–3, 5, 8–11, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Newton and Schilling (US 2016/0256918 A1, filed Oct. 9, 2014). 4. Claims 1, 4–6, 8–11, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Persky and Schilling. 5. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Persky, Schilling, and Memmen (US 2008/0006384 A1, published Jan. 10, 2008). ANALYSIS Rejections 1 and 2 In view of our affirmance of Rejections 3–5 below, we decline to address Rejections 1 and 2. Appeal 2020-002374 Application 15/159,296 3 Rejections 3–5 After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant has not identified reversible error in Rejections 3–5. Accordingly, we affirm those rejections for reasons set forth below, in the Final Action dated November 9, 2018, and in the Examiner’s Answer. The Appellant presents arguments for claims 1 and 24. We address those claims below. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with claim 1, from which they depend. Claim 1. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a core . . . wherein the core includes at least one additively manufactured component.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Newton (Rejection 3) and Persky (Rejection 4) each teach every element of claim 1 except that their cores do not include an additively manufactured component. Ans. 6 (Newton), 8 (Persky). The Examiner finds that Schilling discloses a core in an investment casting process that is additively manufactured, and that Schilling teaches the use of additive manufacturing “to avoid use[] of [a] tool and quickly change geometry of the mold and core.” Id. at 6–8. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to additively manufacture the cores of Newton and Persky to avoid the use of tools and to be able to quickly change the geometry of the mold and core. Id. In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues that “[o]ne of skill in the art would not have been awakened to the possibility of additively manufacturing a component of the core based on the teaching to create the Appeal 2020-002374 Application 15/159,296 4 entire core via the additive manufacturing process.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphases added). In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner responds that “the current claim language does not preclude from [sic] an entirety of the core being made by additive manufacturing.” Ans. 11. The Appellant files a Reply Brief but does not further address this issue. Particularly under the claim construction standard applicable to this proceeding (broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, see In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)), we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. As to Rejection 4 based on primary reference Persky, and with reference to Figure 1 of Persky, Persky describes “feed core 28” having components 30, 32, and 34. See Persky at 3:50–52. Under the Examiner’s rejection, each component 30, 32, and 34 of the core 28 would be additively manufactured, i.e., the entire core 28 would be additively manufactured. See Ans. 7–8. In this scenario, at least three components of the core— components 30, 32, and 34 of core 28—are additively manufactured. That falls within the scope of claim 1’s recitation that “the core includes at least one additively manufactured component.” As to Rejection 3 based on primary reference Newton, although what the Examiner identifies as Newton’s core (element 22 of Figure 2, Ans. 6) is not as cleanly divided into multiple components as is the core of Persky discussed above, the Appellant provides no explanation as to why the claim language should be interpreted as excluding single component cores in Appeal 2020-002374 Application 15/159,296 5 which the component is additively manufactured. We determine that such a scenario falls within the scope of claim 1 because the core in that scenario includes at least one additively manufactured component, i.e., the entire component/core. On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under the rationales set forth in either Rejection 3 (Newton) or Rejection 4 (Persky). See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”); cf. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.”). Claim 24. Claim 24 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “each fine detail in the at least one fine detail is a distinct component from a remainder of the core, and wherein the strengthening coating maintains a relative position of each of the at least one fine detail and the remainder of the core.” Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Persky’s Figure 1 depicts an embodiment with fine details 36 and 38 that are distinct components from the remainder of the core 30/32/34, and that Persky’s “strengthening coating [Fig. 2 element 56] maintains a relative position of each of the at least one fine detail and the remainder of the core (item 56 maintains the relative position of items 36 & 38 with respect to items 30, 32 & 34).” Ans. 8–9. Appeal 2020-002374 Application 15/159,296 6 In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues that Persky’s elements 36 and 38 “are not maintained in position via the coating 56 at all,” but, rather, are maintained in place by adhesive 44. Appeal Br. 6. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner responds that Persky’s fine details 36/38 and Persky’s core 30/32/34 “will be away from each other by at least the coating (56) thickness. Therefore, the coating (56) will maintain the relative position of fine details . . . and the core.” Ans. 11. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant argues that “nothing in . . . Persky . . . even hints that the coating maintains the relative position of the RMCs and the core.” Reply Br. 2. The Appellant also argues that the claims require the fine details to be attached directly to the core via the coating. Id. Those arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the rejection. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we determine that the disputed term encompasses embodiments such as that of Persky’s Figure 1 in which the coating in combination with other elements (e.g., Persky’s adhesive 44) collectively maintain the position of the fine detail relative to the remainder of the core. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that Persky’s coating 56, due to its attachment to both fine details 36, 38, and its apparent direct interaction with adhesive 44, plays at least some role in maintaining the position of the fine details relative to the remainder of the core. Contrary to the Appellant’s arguments, the plain language of the claim does not require the coating of the fine detail to be joined directly to the core. The Appellant relies on paragraph 47 of the Specification, which discloses a preferred embodiment in which the coating functions “to join the Appeal 2020-002374 Application 15/159,296 7 core components . . . and maintain their relative positions throughout the casting process.” Spec. ¶ 47 (emphasis added). Paragraph 47 contemplates using the coating “to join the core components,” not to join fine details to the core, as alleged by the Appellant. See Reply Br. 2. Additionally, paragraph 47 describes two functions for the coating 126: (1) joining the core components, and (2) maintaining their relative positions. See Spec. ¶ 47. Claim 24 recites only the second of those two functions. See Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix). We discern nothing in paragraph 47 or in claim 24 that supports the Appellant’s position that claim 24 requires the coating “to attach the fine detail to the core.” See Reply Br. 2. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 9–11 102(a)(1) Newton 1, 4–6, 9–11 102(a)(1) Persky 1–3, 5, 8– 11, 25 103 Newton, Schilling 1–3, 5, 8– 11, 25 1, 4–6, 8– 11, 24, 25 103 Persky, Schilling 1, 4–6, 8– 11, 24, 25 21 103 Persky, Schilling, Memmen 21 Overall Outcome 1–6, 8–11, 21, 24, 25 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED