Eklavya Calla et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 5, 2020

2019001581 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 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.
14/524,381 10/27/2014 Eklavya CALLA 275631/22113-0218 8895
13152 7590 05/05/2020
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2020 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):
patents@mcneeslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EKLAVYA CALLA, KRISHNAMURTHY ANAND, and
SURINDER SINGH PABLA
Appeal 2019-001581
Application 14/524,381
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, 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, 8–11, 13–16, and 21. See Final
Act. 1. 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 parties in interest as the
inventors, Eklavya Calla, Krishnamurthy Anand, and Surinder Singh Pabla,
and the assignee, General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001581
Application 14/524,381

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for producing a coating on an
iron-based substrate. The coating is useful for protecting components of gas
turbines and aviation engines, such as turbine blades and compressor vanes.
Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3, 17. The coating includes a cobalt-chromium-based coating
material with particles of at least one anodic element in elemental form
distributed therein. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for producing a coating, comprising:
providing an iron-based alloy substrate; and
depositing a protective coating over a surface of the iron-
based alloy substrate, the protective coating comprising a
cobalt-chromium-based coating material having particles of at
least one anodic element in elemental form distributed therein;
wherein the at least one anodic element is anodic to the
iron-based alloy substrate; and
wherein the particles of the at least one anodic element
are provided in an amount to move an overall potential of the
coating from cathodic to anodic with respect to the iron-based
alloy substrate.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-001581
Application 14/524,381

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Giannozzi US 6,986,951 B2 Jan. 17, 2006
Hu US 2005/0220995 A1 Oct. 6, 2005
Jabado US 2010/0212541 A1 Aug. 26, 2010
Fraim US 2011/0041515 A1 Feb. 24, 2011
Anand US 2013/0340403 A1 Dec. 26, 2013

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–3, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Jabado in view of Giannozzi;
2. Claims 4, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Jabado
in view of Giannozzi and Anand;
3. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Jabado in view of
Giannozzi and Fraim; and
4. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Jabado in view of
Giannozzi and Hu.
OPINION
In arguing against the rejection of claims 1–3, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Jabado in view of Giannozzi,
Appellant focuses on the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–7. Thus, we also
focus on the rejection of claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that “Jabado teaches a method
of coating iron alloy turbine components to prevent corrosion wherein a
coating material comprising metal particles as sacrificial anodes is applied to
Appeal 2019-001581
Application 14/524,381

4
turbine component substrates.” Final Act. 2 (citing Jabado, Abstract, ¶¶ 4,
17, 38, 59). Appellant does not dispute that Jabado teaches or suggests
coating an iron-base substrate. Appeal Br. 5. Nor is there any dispute that
Jabado’s coating includes “a filler material in a matrix material as a coating
creating a sacrificial anode action on the base material.” Appeal Br. 5.
However, according to Appellant, “Jabado does not disclose, teach, or
suggest at least one anodic element in elemental form in a coating that
moves an overall potential of the coating from cathodic to anodic with
respect to an iron-based alloy substrate, as recited in independent claim 1.”
Id.
In light of the fact that the Examiner cites specific portions of Jabado
to support the finding that Jabado teaches using an anodic element in
elemental form that creates sacrificial anodes (Final Act. 2; Ans. 7) and
Appellant does not explain how Jabado’s disclosure fails to meet the
requirements of the claim limitation, we determine a preponderance of the
evidence supports the finding of the Examiner. Jabado teaches using as the
filler material an anodic element in elemental form, such as aluminum.
Jabado ¶ 4. Jabado further teaches the compressor blade or vane coating
provides a protective effect because “the metal particles embedded in the
base coating, together with the (more noble) metal of the compressor blade
or vane and the electrolyte, from a galvanic cell, in which the metal particles
form what are known as sacrificial anodes.” Jabado ¶ 4. Corrosion then takes
place in the sacrificial anodes, i.e., in the metal particles, instead of in the
metal of the compressor blade or vane. Id. Appellant does not discuss how
the anodic element of the claim differs from Jabado’s anodic element.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding.
Appeal 2019-001581
Application 14/524,381

5
Claim 1 requires a cobalt-chromium-based coating material. The
Examiner acknowledges that Jabado does not teach such a coating material
and turns to Giannozzi to support a finding of a suggestion for using a
cobalt-chromium-based coating material along with the metal particles
(aluminum or zinc) of Jabado to improve corrosion protection. Final Act. 3.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s obviousness reasoning
because “there is no reason to improve the corrosion protection of
Giannozzi” as Giannozzi’s cobalt-chromium coating material already
provides corrosion protection and “there is no evidence in the prior art of
record that putting Jabado’s filler materials in Giannozzi’s alloy would even
still provide corrosion protection to an iron-based substrate.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. That both Jabado and
Giannozzi seek corrosion protection supports the Examiner’s finding. The
Examiner points out that Giannozzi is, like Jabado, directed to coatings for
turbine blade components, and Giannozzi specifically identifies stainless
steel (iron alloy) substrates as the substrate to be protected. Ans. 8 (citing
Giannozzi col. 5, ll. 16–21, Examples). As further pointed out by the
Examiner, Jabado also acknowledges the use of cobalt-chromium-based
coating materials as useful for corrosion protection. Id.; Jabado ¶ 60. Both
anodic elements such as aluminum and zinc, as taught by Jabado, and
cobalt-chromium-based coatings were known for use in coatings for
protecting iron-based substrates from corrosion. As stated in In re
Kerkhoven, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of
which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to
form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In
re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980). Appellant points to no
Appeal 2019-001581
Application 14/524,381

6
convincing evidence, nor provides convincing technical reasoning,
indicating that the ordinary artisan would have viewed the anodic element
and cobalt-chromium-based coating material as unusable together. In the
absence of such evidence or reasoning, we cannot say that Appellant has
identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to
combine the two.
Second, Appellant contends that replacing the glass-ceramic coating
material of Jabado with the metallic coating of Giannozzi would
significantly change the material properties of the coating, and hence the
principle of operation of the invention of Jabado. Appeal Br. 6.
First, Appellant does not provide any convincing evidentiary basis or
technical reasoning in support of the argument that the proposed substitution
of the matrix material would change the material properties of the coating
and principle operation such that they would not perform the function of
protecting the substrate. The material property of the coating is its protective
effect. Jabado describes the protective effect as due to interaction between
“the metal particles embedded in the base coating, together with the (more
noble) metal of the compressor blade or vane.” Jabado ¶ 4. Jabado describes
the selection of a glass-ceramic matrix with the word “may,” indicating it is
not required. Jabado ¶ 11 (“The matrix material may in particular have glass-
ceramic base properties” (emphasis added)). Thus, Jabado conveys that the
protective effect of the anodic metal particles does not hinge on the
composition of the matrix. Appellant does not provide convincing evidence
or technical reasoning to the contrary. Appeal Br. 6. Thus, Appellant has not
identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion to use
Appeal 2019-001581
Application 14/524,381

7
a cobalt-chromium-based material for its known corrosion protecting
properties as the matrix material in Jabado’s coating.
Appellant’s further arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific
findings and conclusions in a manner that identifies a reversible error in the
Examiner’s in the rejection of claim 1.
As to the further rejections, Appellant merely argues that the
additionally applied references do not teach or suggest what is required by
claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–9. As Appellant has not addressed the specific
findings and conclusions the Examiner makes in the further rejections,
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in those rejections.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 8–11, 13–16, and 21 is
AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2019-001581
Application 14/524,381

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8, 10,
11, 15, 16
103 Jabado,
Giannozzi
1–3, 8, 10,
11, 15, 16

4, 13, 14 103 Jabado,
Giannozzi,
Anand
4, 13, 14
9 103 Jabado,
Giannozzi, Fraim
9
21 103 Jabado,
Giannozzi, Hu
21
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 8–11,
13–16, 21

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