United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

15662871 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
15/662,871 07/28/2017 Shayan Ahmadian 97233US01-U(17-183) 6901
52237 7590 06/30/2020
Bachman & LaPointe, P.C.
900 Chapel St., Suite 1201
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 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 SHAYAN AHMADIAN and KEVIN W. SCHLICHTING
Appeal 2019-005879
Application 15/662,871
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–9, 12, and 16, 17, 18, 21, and 22.2
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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Technologies Corporation (see page 1 of the Supplemental paper filed on
April 20, 2020).
2 Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 have been cancelled and therefore not included
in the rejections. Ans. 3–4.
Appeal 2019-005879
Application 15/662,871

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A plasma spray system, comprising:
a turntable to which a workpiece is mounted;
a temperature sensor operable to determine a
temperature of the workpiece in a measurement zone;
a heater operable to selectively heat the workpiece in
a heating zone downstream of the measurement zone;
a plasma spray subsystem operable to plasma spray a
second layer of a multi-layer ceramic coating onto a first
layer of a multi-layer ceramic coating onto the workpiece in
an application zone downstream of the heating zone; and
a control in communication with the plasma spray
subsystem, the temperature sensor, and the heater, the control
operable to control the heater to heat the workpiece in the
heating zone in response to the temperature of the workpiece in
the measurement zone such that the workpiece in the
application zone is at a desired temperature to receive the
plasma spray, the turntable operable to move the workpiece
with respect to the temperature sensor, the heater, and the
plasma spray subsystem such that the workpiece sequentially
traverses through the measurement zone, the heating zone, then
the application zone.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Iyer US 4,723,589 Feb. 9, 1988
Li US 5,518,560 May 21, 1996
Chen US 5,576,069 Nov. 19, 1996
Gualco US 6,051,279 Apr. 18, 2000
Heuser US 2004/0146657 A1 July 29, 2004
Strock US 2008/0166489 A1 July 10, 2008
Lord GB 1,405,887 Sept. 10, 1975

Appeal 2019-005879
Application 15/662,871

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 5, 12, 18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Strock in view of Lord and Heuser.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Strock in view of
Lord and Heuser as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, 18, 21 and 22, and further
in view of Iyer.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Strock in view of
Lord and Heuser as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, 18, 21, and 22, and further
in view of Chen.
4. Claims 7–9, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Strock in view
of Lord and Heuser as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, 18, 21, and 22, and further
in view of Gualco.
5. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Strock in view of
Lord and Heuser as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, 18, and 22, and further in
view of Li.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in 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.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal (including the Final Office Action, the Examiner’s
Answer, the Appeal Brief, and the Reply Brief), we are unpersuaded that
Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-005879
Application 15/662,871

4
rejections essentially for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the record,
with the following emphasis.
Appellant does not separately argue Rejections 2–5. Appeal Br. 17.
Hence, our determination with regard to Rejection 1 is dispositive for
Rejections 2–5.

Rejection 1
We select claim 1 as representative of all the claims on appeal, based
upon Appellant’s presented arguments. Appeal Br. 12–17. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c) (1) (iv) (2018).
We refer to pages 4–14 of the Final Office Action regarding the
Examiner’s statement of the rejection for Rejection 1.
Beginning on page 12 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that there
is no motivation to combine Strock in view of Lord and Heuser as proposed
in the rejection. Appellant argues that Strock is directed to applying
segmented ceramic coatings, and desires a low thermal gradient area 58
where vertical cracks propagate to the surface exposed to the atmosphere
through layers 30, 36 and/or 38. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that, in
contrast, Lord is not concerned with forming a ceramic spray coating
(segmented or otherwise) but to hot machining a workpiece. Appellant
argues that Lord utilizes a plasma torch and control of the heating by the
plasma torch for workpiece heating.
We are unpersuaded by the aforementioned line of argument. Strock
and Lord are sufficiently analogous for the reasons stated by the Examiner
on pages 5–7 of the Answer. Furthermore, the Examiner relies upon Lord
for teaching a system whereby preheating of a workpiece is provided before
Appeal 2019-005879
Application 15/662,871

5
further treatment, and combines this teaching with the teachings of Strock.
Final Act. 5–8. Ans. 5–6. Lord, p. 1, ll. 10–30 and figure. Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive because they are based on alleged deficiencies
in the teachings of the individual references, and fail to show error in the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to the combined teachings
of the references. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art;
one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097-98 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
With regard to the tertiary reference Heuser, Appellant argues that
Heuser is directed to using multiple plasma torches with a single component
on a manipulator 13, and that use of a multitude of torches in
this configuration undermines the Examiner's proposed combination as the
single component is manipulated within multiple plasma sprays, thus
teaching away from a turntable with a multiple of workpieces. Again,
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they are based on alleged
deficiencies in the teachings of the individual references, and fail to show
error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to the
combined teachings of the references. The Examiner relies upon Heuser for
teaching that it is well known in the art to use a turntable for moving a
workpiece. Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner also states the Strock discloses
rotational movement as an option. Strock, [0048]. Final Act. 8. The
Examiner also refers to Lord’s figure for teaching rotational movement of a
workpiece. Ans. 9. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
Appeal 2019-005879
Application 15/662,871

6
obvious to have used a turntable to move the workpiece in Strock since use
of a turntable is a well-known form of movement of a workpiece. Final Act.
8. We agree. In the Reply Brief, Appellant additionally argues that Heuser
rotates the workpiece about its own axis. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that
this is different from rotating multiple components in a circular merry-go-
round fashion. Again, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they
are based on alleged deficiencies in the teachings of the individual
references, and fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
with respect to the combined teachings of the references. The Examiner
relies upon Strock for teaching sequential movement of the workpiece and
relies upon the other references for teaching circular movement and/or use of
a turntable. Furthermore, claim 1 does not require rotating multiple
components (as pointed out by the Examiner on page 10 of the Answer).
Consequently, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error
because they are not grounded on limitations that appear in the claims. In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1368–1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
On page 15 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that even if the
combination were proper, the applied references do not suggest temperature
control of a second layer. We are unpersuaded by this line of argument. A
stated by the Examiner on page 12 of the Answer, Strock teaches that the
process can involve deposition of multiple layers. Strock, Figure 2. Final
Act. 5–6.
Appellant argues that Strock provides a cracked coating and therefore
Appellant’s temperature control objectives is not of concern in Strock.
Appeal Br. 15. We are unpersuaded by this line of argument for the reasons
Appeal 2019-005879
Application 15/662,871

7
presented by the Examiner in the paragraph bridging pages 12–13 of the
Answer.
Appellant argues that the cracked surface of Strock is a desired goal of
Strock such that application of an additional layer over the Strock coating as
as proposed in the rejection would necessarily ruin the objective of the
Strock of having a cracked coating as the outermost coating. Appeal Br. 16.
We are unpersuaded by this argument for the reasons provided by the
Examiner on pages 13 of the Answer.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1–5.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed
1, 5, 12, 18,
21, 22
103 Strock, Lord,
Heuser
1, 5, 12, 18,
21, 22
4 103 Strock, Lord,
Heuser, Iyer
4
6 103 Strock, Lord,
Heuser, Chen
6
7–9, 16, 17 103 Strock, Lord,
Heuser, Gualco
7–9, 16, 17
21 103 Strock in view of
Lord and Heuser,
Li
21
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–9, 12,
18, 21, 22
Appeal 2019-005879
Application 15/662,871

8

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