Ex Parte Bayer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2018

13504888 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/504,888 04/27/2012
23911 7590 05/07/2018
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erwin Bayer
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Ol 1235.64212US 2535
EXAMINER
ZHU, WEIPING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2018 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ER WIN BA YER and KARL-HERMANN RICHTER 1
Appeal2017-006832
Application 13/504,888
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of sole independent claim 24 as
unpatentable over Beck (US 2004/0112280 Al, published June 1, 2004) in
view of Jeantette (US 6,046,426, issued Apr. 4, 2000) and of dependent
claims 25-37 as unpatentable over these references alone or in combination
1 MTU Aero Engines GmbH is identified as the real party in interest (App.
Br. 1).
Appeal2017-006832
Application 13/504,888
with an additional prior art reference. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a method for producing a component of a turbo-
machine comprising the steps of: a) feeding a powder component and
supplying radiation from a source 18 coaxially to provide layer-by-layer
deposition of a powder component material 16 onto a component platform
10 in a buildup and joining zone 14 formed within a furnace 26; b) local
layer-by-layer fusing or sintering the powder component material wherein
the zone 14 is heated to a temperature just below a melting point of the
powder component material; c) layer-by-layer lowering of the platform 10
into the furnace 26; and d) repeating steps a) to c) until the component is
finished (claim 24, Fig. 1 ).
A copy of claim 24, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, appears below.
24. A method for producing a component of a turbomachine,
comprising the steps of:
a) feeding a powder component and supplying radiation from a source
coaxially to provide layer-by-layer deposition of a powder component
material onto a component platform in a region of a buildup and joining
zone formed within a furnace, wherein the deposition takes place in
accordance with layer information of the component to be produced;
b) local layer-by-layer fusing or sintering the powder component
material by energy supplied in the region of the buildup and joining zone,
wherein the buildup and joining zone is heated to a temperature just below a
melting point of the powder component material;
c) layer-by-layer lowering of the component platform into the furnace
by a predefined layer thickness; and
2
Appeal2017-006832
Application 13/504,888
d) repeating steps a) to c) until the component is finished.
In rejecting sole independent claim 24, the Examiner finds that Beck
"discloses a method for producing layer by layer a monocrystalline body in a
superalloy turbine blade comprising feeding a powder component material
onto a substrate in a region of buildup ... [and] melting the powder
component material by a slab laser" (Final Action 2). The Examiner
additionally finds that Beck "discloses using a Bridgeman furnace ... to
directionally solidify the molten powder component material to form a
monocrystalline layer (paragraphs [0004]-[0005]) without specifying the
lowering step as claimed" (id. at 3). Concerning this latter deficiency, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to lower layer by
layer the substrate by a predetermined thickness from a high temperature
zone in a zone furnace [i.e., the previously mentioned Bridgeman furnace] to
a predetermined lower temperature zone in the zone furnace as claimed in
order to establish a temperature gradient required to form a monocrystalline
layer by layer as disclosed by Beck ... (paragraph [0027])" (id.).
The Examiner also finds that Beck fails to disclose "feeding powders
coaxially with the laser beam as claimed in claim 24" but that Jeantette
discloses such coaxial feeding (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious "to feed powders coaxially with the laser beam in the
process of Beck ... as disclosed by J eantette ... in order to produce desired
uniform flow of powders to the region and allow a focused laser beam to
pass through the delivery system without being attenuated as disclosed by
J eantette" (id.).
3
Appeal2017-006832
Application 13/504,888
Regarding the Examiner's obviousness conclusion involving a
Bridgeman (i.e., zone) furnace, Appellants argue that the Bridgeman furnace
discussed in paragraphs [0004]-[0005] of Beck is disclosed in relation to a
prior art casting method for making a monocrystalline structure rather than
Beck's epitaxial method for repairing such a structure (App. Br. 3--4).
According to Appellants, there is nothing to suggest that Beck's repairing
method utilizes a Bridgeman furnace and likewise no suggestion of
modifying Beck's method to include both steps b) and c) of claim 24 which
require layer-by-layer fusing or sintering the powder component material
and layer-by-layer lowering of the component platform into the furnace (id.
at 4).
In response, the Examiner urges that it would have been obvious to
use a Bridgeman furnace in the method of Beck "because it [i.e. the
Bridgeman furnace] is known in the art as disclosed by Beck ... in
paragraph [0004]" (Ans. 4).
While paragraph [0004] evinces that it was known to use the
Bridgeman furnace in a prior art method for casting a monocrystalline
structure, the Examiner proffers no evidence that a Bridgeman furnace is
even capable of performing Beck's epitaxial method of repairing a
monocrystalline structure (see, e.g., Beck i-fi-123-27). For this reason, the
Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
proposition of using a Bridgeman furnace for practicing the epitaxial method
of Beck in such a way as to result in steps b) and c) of claim 24.
4
Appeal2017-006832
Application 13/504,888
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner errs in concluding
that it would have been obvious to feed Beck's powder coaxially with the
laser beam in view of Jeantette (App. Br. 3). Specifically, Appellants argue
that if such a modification were made, "[Beck's] fed [powder] material
would interfere with ... beam 2, so that the beam intensity distribution
features set out beginning in paragraph 0033 ... and the material free lateral
marginal areas mentioned in paragraph 0056 ... would be impermissibly
altered or eliminated" (id.).
The Examiner responds by stating that the proposed coaxial feed is
not contrary to Beck's disclosure "because the powder would be fed to the
center of the laser focal point in the coaxial powder delivery as disclosed by
Jeantette" (Ans. 3).
In reply, Appellants correctly explain that the focal spot 3 of Beck's
laser beam 2 does not have the profile of a point as the Examiner seems to
believe but instead has a rectangular profile whose width is approximately
the same as the width of fed powder material 13 (Reply Br. 2 citing i-fi-133
(again), 51-52, 72-73).
Because the width of Beck's focal spot 3 and fed powder material 13
is approximately the same, the coaxial feed proposed by the Examiner
necessarily would result in powder material impermissibly interfering with
laser beam 2 and/or depositing on lateral marginal areas 5 (see, e.g., Beck
Fig. 2). Accordingly, the Examiner also fails to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness for the claim 24 feature of feeding a powder component and
supplying radiation (e.g., a laser beam) coaxially.
5
Appeal2017-006832
Application 13/504,888
Under these circumstances, we do not sustain the Examiner's § 103
rejections of independent claim 24 and of dependent claims 25-37.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6