UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019006897 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

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.
15/050,532 02/23/2016 Mario P. BOCHIECHIO 67097-1474PUS2;57248US02 1175
54549 7590 12/31/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
YUEN, JACKY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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 MARIO P. BOCHIECHIO, JOHN JOSEPH MARCIN,
and DILIP M. SHAH

Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 11–15, and 21–31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of die casting a
component wherein a refractory metal intermetallic composite based
material system includes one of Nb5Si3+NbO+SiO2 and NbSi2+Nb5Si3+SiO2
(Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6, Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of die casting a component, comprising:
injecting a refractory metal intermetallic composite based
material system into a die cavity of a die of a die casting
system, wherein the refractory metal intermetallic composite
based material system includes one of Nb5Si3+NbO+SiO2 and
NbSi2+Nb5Si3+SiO2.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Anderson (WO 00/37201, published June 29,
2000) in view of Bewlay (US 2006/0147335 A1, published July
6, 2006), and Carrillo-Heian (Simultaneous synthesis and
densification of niobium silicide/niobium composites, 45
SCRIPTA MATERIALIA 405–412 (2001).
2. Claims 14, 15, 21–27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Bewlay, Carrillo-
Heian, Stathopoulos (US 2002/0012590 A1, published Jan. 31,
2002), and Manda (US 2009/0029076 A1, published Jan. 29,
2009).
3. Claims 28–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Anderson in view of Bewlay, Carrillo-Heian, Stathopoulos,
Manda, and Herzog (DE 102007054723 A1, published May 20,
2009).
Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532

3
Appellant argues the subject matter common to independent claims 1, 21,
and 30 (Appeal Br. 4–8, 9, 11). We select claim 1 as representative of the
group. Appellant separately argues claim 14, and claims 28 and 29 (Appeal
Br. 8–10). Claims 11–13, 21–27, 30, and 31 will stand or fall with our
analysis of the rejection of claim 1. Claim 15 will stand or fall with our
analysis of the rejection of claim 14, from which it depends.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the obviousness
rejection over Anderson, Bewlay, and Carrillo-Heian are located on pages 5
to 6 of the Final Office Action. The Examiner finds that Anderson teaches
the subject matter of claim 1 except for the high-melting temperature
material is a refractory metal intermetallic composite based material system
which includes one of Nb5Si3+NbO+SiO2 and NbSi2+Nb5Si3+SiO2 recited in
claim 1 (Final Act. 5, 6). The Examiner finds that Bewlay teaches that Nb
refractory metal intermetallic composites are improved higher temperature
materials for making gas turbines (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that
Bewlay teaches that nickel-based superalloys and titanium alloys were used
to make gas turbines (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Bewlay does
not teach that the niobium system includes one of Nb5Si3+NbO+SiO2 and
NbSi2+Nb5Si3+SiO2 (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Carrillo-Heian
teaches that in making a niobium silicide alloy system, oxygen impurities on
the silicon material results in forming niobium oxide and silicon dioxide as
part of the niobium silicide system (Final Act. 6). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Anderson’s injection die casting
process to include Bewlay’s niobium refractory metal intermetallic
Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532

4
composite in lieu of Anderson’s titanium or nickel based superalloys to form
gas turbines with improved properties as compared to nickel or titanium
superalloys (Final Act. 6). The Examiner further concludes that it would
have been obvious to use Carrillo-Heian’s process to a make Bewlay’s
niobium refractory metal intermetallic composite material because Bewlay
teaches that a variety of known methods may be used to make the refractory
metal intermetallic composites (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that
Carrillo-Heian teaches that the NbSi2, SiO2, and NbO result from the
reaction of residual oxygen during the formation Nb5Si3 refractory
composites (Final Act. 6).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness because the prior art applied does not disclose a
refractory metal intermetallic composite (RMIC) based system that includes
one of Nb5Si3+NbO+SiO2 and NbSi2+Nb5Si3+SiO2 (Appeal Br. 5–6).
Appellant contends that Carrillo-Heian relied upon by the Examiner to teach
the niobium RMIC recited in claim 1, at best teaches a dense Nb5Si3 material
with some SiO2 and NbO remaining after its pressure assisted combustion
synthesis (Appeal Br. 6). Appellant argues that Carrillo-Heian does not
teach using the recited Nb RMIC in a die casting process (Appeal Br. 6).
Appellant argues that there would have been no motivation for combining
Carrillo-Heian’s teachings with Anderson and Bewlay (Appeal Br. 6).
Appellant argues that Carrillo-Heian provides no motivation or expectation
of success for using a RMIC including Nb5Si3+NbO+SiO2 and
NbSi2+Nb5Si3+SiO2 in Anderson’s die casting system (Appeal Br. 7).
Appellant argues that the Examiner admits that Carrillo-Heian does not
disclose or suggest the RMIC is used in a die casting process (Reply Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532

5
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because it improperly
attacks the references individually instead of addressing what the combined
teachings of the applied prior art would have suggested. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner rejection is based upon the
combined teachings of Anderson, Bewlay, and Carrillo-Heian. Appellant’s
argument attacking only Carrillo-Heian’s failure to teach die casting
niobium RMIC does not address the Examiner’s findings that Anderson
teaches die casting nickel or titanium superalloys and Bewlay teaches
substituting a niobium RMIC for nickel superalloys (Final Act. 5–6). The
teachings of Anderson and Bewlay would have suggested using a niobium
RMIC material system in place of Anderson’s nickel superalloy. The
Examiner relies on Carrillo-Heian to teach a niobium RMIC material system
that includes Nb5Si3 has SiO2, NbSi2, and NbO as part of the system because
of the residual oxygen on the silicon (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4). In other words,
the substitution of Bewlay’s niobium RMIC system for Anderson’s nickel
superalloy would have included NbSi2, SiO2, and NbO as part of the
niobium RMIC system because of the method used to make the niobium
RMIC as taught by Carrillo-Heian. The Examiner has established that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Carrillo-Heian’s niobium
RMIC system in Anderson’s die casting process as suggested by Bewlay
because Bewlay teaches that the niobium RMIC can be made by a variety of
methods and Carrillo-Heian teaches tailoring the niobium RMIC to obtain
material properties for specific purposes (Final Act. 6). Appellant has not
proffered evidence that using a RMIC including at least one of
Nb5Si3+NbO+SiO2 and NbSi2+Nb5Si3+SiO2 yielded unexpected results.
Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532

6
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Anderson in view of
Bewlay and Carrillo-Heian.

Rejection (2): Claim 14
Claim 14 ultimately depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the
gas turbine engine airfoil includes an internal geometry that is cast into the
airfoil.”
Appellant argues that Manda’s teachings regarding using embedded
hollow inserts in molds are specific to molding light metals, such as
magnesium (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would not have combined Manda’s teaching with a niobium RMIC
system as recited in claim 14 by its dependency on claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9).
The Examiner finds that Manda is in the same field of endeavor as
directed to die casting and Manda’s teachings would have been applicable
for use with other materials as well (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that
Manda’s process uses cores or hollow tubes in the die casting process to
form internal cooling passages that can withstand high injection speeds and
high pressures of the prior art (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that Manda’s
teachings are applicable to the combination of Anderson and Stathopoulos
(Ans. 7).
Appellant does not dispute that Manda is in the same field of endeavor
as Appellant’s claimed invention (i.e., die casting) (Reply Br. 1–2). As such
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings that Manda’s teaching
would have been applicable to Anderson’s die casting process (Ans. 7).
Appellant has not established reversible error with the Examiner’s rejection
Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532

7
over Anderson, Bewlay, Carrillo-Heian, Stathopoulos, and Manda. We
affirm.

Rejection (3): Claims 28 and 29
Claim 28 depends from independent claim 21 and recites “wherein the
die includes at least one die insert having a thermal conductivity of at least
310 W/m*K.”
Claim 29 depends from claim 28 and recites “wherein the die insert
has a melting temperature of at least 1760°F.”
Appellant argues that the Examiner uses over six different references
to conclude that the subject matter of claims 28 and 29 would have been
obvious (Appeal Br. 10). Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on
Herzog to determine that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious is based on impermissible hindsight (Appeal Br. 10).
The Examiner finds that Anderson teaches that the materials used for
the molding die should have good thermal conductivity (Final Act. 13; Ans.
8). The Examiner finds that Herzog teaches a mold insert used in injection
molding that improves heat conduction function in the mold, the mold
surface insert is formed of a material of high thermal conductivity such as
copper or a copper alloy (Ans. 8–9). The Examiner finds that copper or
copper alloys would have the required properties as disclosed by Appellant
in paragraph 27 of the Specification (Ans. 9).
The Examiner’s rejection is not based upon impermissible hindsight
as argued by Appellant, but rather the teachings of the Herzog and
Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532

8
Anderson. In particular, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined Herzog’s copper insert with Anderson’s
molding die because Anderson teaches the die is made of high thermal
conductivity material (Final Act. 14). The Examiner finds that Herzog
teaches that using the copper insert reduces production time and energy
required during construction of the mold (Final Act. 13–14). Appellant’s
arguments do not address or otherwise show reversible error with these
findings. Appellant’s arguments regarding the number of references as
being evidence of a weak obviousness rejection is not persuasive. In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over
Anderson, Bewlay, Carrillo-Heian, Stathopoulos, Manda, and Herzog.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis   Affirmed Reversed
1, 11–13 103 Anderson, Bewlay,
Carrillo-Heian
1, 11–13
14, 15, 21–27, 31 103 Anderson, Bewlay,
Carrillo-Heian,
Stathopoulos,
Manda
14, 15,
21–27, 31

28–31 103 Anderson, Bewlay,
Carrillo-Heian,
Stathopoulos,
Manda, Herzog
28–31
Appeal 2019-006897
Application 15/050,532

9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis   Affirmed Reversed
Overall Outcome 1, 11–15,
21–31

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