Ex Parte BRUCK

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2019

13658866 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/658,866 10/24/2012
28524 7590 04/24/2019
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
GERALD J. BRUCK
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.
2012Pl 1280US01 2279
EXAMINER
LAW, NGA LEUNG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2019 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD J. BRUCK
Appeal2018-005786
Application 13/658,866
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of October 24,
2012 (Spec.), Final Office Action of October 26, 2016 (Final), Appeal Brief
of May 26, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of March 16, 2018
(Ans.), and Reply Brief of May 15, 2018 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens Energy, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005786
Application 13/658,866
as obvious over Kurz3 in view of Arcella 4 and Shubert5 and claim 4 as
obvious over those references further in view of Monsheimer. 6 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a method for repairing a directionally
solidified (single crystal or columnar grained) component such as the
squealer tip of a gas turbine blade. See, e.g., claims 1, 12, 15 and Spec.
4: 10-5: 12. Claim 15, with the limitation at issue highlighted, is illustrative:
15. A method for epitaxial additional [ sic, addition] of
material to a surface of a directionally solidified substrate, the
method comprising:
mobilizing particles of material over a process surface of
the substrate;
applying energy across the entire process surface in a
manner effective to melt and fuse the material epitaxially onto
the entire process surface simultaneously under a continuous
condition of melting and solidification and not being rebuilt
incrementally across the surface with individually solidified
passes of progression; and
maintaining the substrate in a position relative to the
particles of material and the applied energy effective to
maintain conditions for continuous epitaxial addition of the
material to the substrate until a desired thickness of the material
is added.
Appeal Br. 16 ( claims appendix) ( emphasis added)
3 Kurz et al., US 6,024,792, issued February 15, 2000 ("Kurz").
4 Arcella et al., US 4,818,562, issued April 4, 1989 ("Arcella").
5 Shubert, US 2007/0138238 Al, published June 21, 2007.
6 Monsheimer et al., US 2004/0232583 Al, published November 25, 2004
("Monsheimer").
2
Appeal2018-005786
Application 13/658,866
OPINION
As explained in the Specification, the invention relates to the repair
of directionally solidified alloy parts, such as gas turbine blades cast from
nickel and cobalt superalloys. Spec. 1:7-21, 4:3-9.
One repair process used in the prior art was a process of epitaxially
building up thin layers one-by-one onto the workpiece. Kurz col. 3, 11. 7-9.
The process creates a melt pool or puddle (Appellant's Fig. 2 (20); Kurz Fig.
4 (43)) that moves along the surface of the substrate. Spec. 3: 13--4:2; Kurz
col. 5, 11. 21-24. For instance, as shown in Figure 4 of Kurz, a laser beam
melts the surface of substrate 41, which forms molten puddle 43 and powder
44 from powder nozzle 45 is blown into the molten puddle. Kurz col. 5, 11.
60-67.
Appellant's method is an improvement over incremental processes,
such as that of Kurz, that use a moving melt pool. Appellant has recognized
that the movement of the melt pool over the surface (from left to right in Fig.
2) results in the pool solidifying in a slight angle A inclined from the
direction of the substrate grains along a solidification axis 28. Spec. 3: 16-
28; Fig. 2. As more layers are processed, the directionally solidified
microstructure recrystallizes in other directions and the directionally
solidified crystal is no longer advanced. Id. Appellant's method is based on
the recognition of the cause of the recrystallization problem as relating the
movement of the melt pool. As Appellant points out,
It should be appreciated that recognizing the cause of the
recrystallization in multi-layer cladding deposited over
directionally solidified substrate material, the present inventor
has innovatively developed an improved process for the repair
of directionally solidified cast materials. The improved process
3
Appeal2018-005786
Application 13/658,866
overcomes the limitations of prior art processes by preserving
the directionally solidified microstructure of the underlying
substrate, extending that directional microstructure into the
repair material, and allowing an essentially unlimited thickness
of directionally solidified repair material to be added.
Appeal Br. 6; Spec. 4:3-9.
Instead of using a moving melt pool, Appellant submerges the entire
processing surface (i.e., the entire top surface of the workpiece as seen in
Fig. 4) in particles of material (powder 34 of Pig. 3) and applies energy
across the entire process area to melt the powder and fuse it to the
underlying workpiece in a continuous casting process. Spec. 4: 19-5: 12. As
the fused powder builds up, the workpiece is moved such that the process
surface remains approximately vertically stationary and the powder drift
over the process plane is constant. Spec. 4: 19-5: 12. The material is not
built up using a moving melt pool or layer-by-layer but instead:
The entire process interface is simultaneously under a
continuous condition of melting and solidification exactly in the
original cast direction, and is not being rebuilt incrementally
across its surface with individually solidified passes of
progression at an angle to the substrate grain orientation,
thereby making possible the replication and extension of the
substrate microstructure to any desired thickness.
Spec. 5:7-12.
There is no dispute that Kurz creates a melt pool by moving the laser
beam energy source across the surface of the workpiece (horizontal X-Y
plane) and builds up layers incrementally in the vertical direction (Z-plane ).
Ans. 17-18. Instead, the Examiner contends that Kurz and Arcella fail to
teach away from the claimed invention because the claims do not "positively
4
Appeal2018-005786
Application 13/658,866
recite the limitation of excluding layer-by-layer process or eliminating layer-
by-layer solidification."
We disagree. The claims must be read in a manner consistent with the
Specification. In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claims are
directed to a continuous casting process, an embodiment of which is
described in the Specification. This process is different than the moving
melt pool, layer-by-layer process of Kurz.
The claims require applying energy across the entire process surface
"in a manner effective to melt and fuse the material epitaxially onto the
entire process surface simultaneously under a continuous condition of
melting and solidification." See, e.g., claim 15 (emphasis added). Thus, the
entire process surface to be treated ( such as the entire top surface area of the
squealer tip 32 of Figure 4) must be melted and fused at once. Spec. 4: 10-
5: 12. Thus, the claims exclude the localized heating that creates a melt pool
taught by Kurz.
The claims further exclude rebuilding the material "incrementally
across the surface with individually solidified passes of progression." See,
e.g., claim 15. This language excludes the layer-by-layer buildup taught by
Kurz.
We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner's rejection is based
on improper hindsight reconstruction. Appeal Br. 9-10. Although it was
known in the art to cast shapes in a fluidized bed of powder while moving
the workpiece relative to the laser energy source as evidenced by Arcella,
Arcella is not concerned with maintaining the crystallinity of an underlying
workpiece while powder is melted and fused onto a surface. Arcella col. 3,
5
Appeal2018-005786
Application 13/658,866
1. 51---col. 4, 1. 54. Shubert does not apply energy to particles of material, but
instead applies energy to a preformed shape such as a sintered shape, wire,
sheet, or casting. Shubert ,r 15. Although Shubert recognizes problems with
moving the heat source in directional solidifying processes (Shubert ,r,r 4--5),
contrary to the Examiner's finding (Final 14), this recognition does not
provide a suggestion to make the combination. This is because Shubert
suggests a different solution: the use of a preformed additive material in a
uniform heating process. Shubert ,r,r 15-16. None of the references suggest
continuously melting and solidifying the entire process surface when using a
particulate additive material, such as powder, and eliminating the
incremental layer-by-layer buildup of the particulate process of Kurz.
The Examiner's reliance on Monsheimer to reject claim 4 does not
remedy the deficiency.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6