Ex Parte Bullied et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13248338 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/248,338 09/29/2011 Steven J. Bullied
54549 7590 10/03/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
PA0017637-U;
67097-1567PU
7250
EXAMINER
HA, STEVENS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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 STEVEN J. BULLIED,
JOHN JOSEPH MARCIN, and CARL R. VERNER
Appeal2015-005773
Application 13/248,33 8
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
uECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-8 and 21-32. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to the Appellants, "[ c ]asting is a known technique used to yield
substantially net shaped components." Spec. i-f 2. Investment casting, for example,
is said to involve "pouring molten metal into a ceramic shell having a cavity in the
shape of a component to be cast." Spec. i-f 2. Another known casting technique is
Appeal2015-005773
Application 13/248,338
said to be die casting. The Appellants disclose that "[ d]ie casting involves
injecting molten metal directly into a reusable die to yield near net-shaped
components." Spec. i-f 3.
The Appellants disclose a method for die casting a hybrid component. The
Appellants define "hybrid component" as including components that are made
from more than one type of material. Spec. i-f 30. Examples of hybrid components
include a turbine blade for a turbine section of a gas turbine engine. Spec. i-f 30.
Independent claims 1, 31, and 3 2 are reproduced from the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief dated November 10, 2014 ("App. Br."). The limitations at
issue are italicized.
1. A method for die casting a hybrid component, comprising the
steps of:
defining a cavity within a die element of a die;
inserting a spar into the cavity;
injecting molten metal into the die element;
solidifj;ing the molten metal within the cavity to form the hybrid
component that is made from at least two different materials, wherein
the spar establishes an internal structure of the hybrid component, and
wherein the spar includes a high melting temperature material that
defines a first melting temperature greater than a second melting
temperature of the molten metal.
App. Br. 9.
31. A method of manufacturing a hybrid gas turbine engine
component, comprising:
die casting the hybrid gas turbine engine component in a die
casting process such that the hybrid gas turbine engine component
includes an internal structure and an outer structure that surrounds the
internal structure, the internal structure comprised of a different
material from the outer structure.
App. Br. 10.
2
Appeal2015-005773
Application 13/248,338
32. A method, comprising:
defining a cavity within a die element of a die casting system
that includes a die that defines the die element, a shot tube in fluid
communication with the die element, and a shot tube plunger
moveable within the shot tube;
positioning a spar into the cavity;
injecting molten metal into the die element using the die casting
system; and
solidifj;ing the molten metal within the cavity to form a hybrid
component that is made from at least two different materials, wherein
the spar establishes an internal structure of the hybrid component and
is comprised of a different material than the molten metal.
App. Br. 11.
Independent claims 1, 31, and 32 stand rejected as follows: 1
(1) claims 1 and 31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Govern et al. 2 in view of Wang et al.; 3 and
(2) claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Govern in
view of Schirra et al. 4 and Wang.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Claims 1 and 31
The Examiner finds Govern teaches a method for die casting a hybrid
component comprising the steps of: (1) defining a cavity within a die element of a
die; (2) inserting a spar (i.e., casting core 76) into the cavity; (3) injecting molten
1 The rejections of dependent claims 2-8 and 21-30 are set forth on pages 3-11 of
the Final Office Action dated June 12, 2014 ("Final").
2 US 7,322,396 B2, issued January 29, 2008 ("Govern").
3 US 2005/0205232 Al, published September 22, 2005 ("Wang").
4 US 2002/0005233 Al, published January 17, 2002 ("Schirra").
3
Appeal2015-005773
Application 13/248,338
metal into the die element; 5 and (4) solidifying the molten metal within the cavity
to form the hybrid component. Final 3.
The Examiner finds "Govern is silent to the specific material of the spar
(equated to the casting core 76)." Final 3. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds "Wang
teaches that in a general manufacturing process for turbine blades, a ceramic core
is assembled into a ceramic shell. Molten metal is poured into the shell to fill the
void therein and again encapsulate the ceramic core contained in the shell." Final
4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to use a ceramic core in the process of Govern based on the
teachings of Wang. Final 4.
The Appellants argue that Govern and Wang both "describe conventional
investment casting operations that utilize ceramic core/shell casting molds,"6 not a
die casting method as claimed. App. Br. 4. The Appellants also argue that Govern
and Wang do not form a hybrid component made of at least two different materials
as claimed. Rather, according to the Appellants, Govern casts a hollow airfoil
5 On this record, it is not clear that Govern teaches injecting molten metal into the
die element. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses injecting or
pouring molten metal into a void for casting a metal vane component. Examiner's
Answer dated March 13, 2015 ("Ans."), at 3 (citing Wang i-f 140).
6 In an investment casting process, wax is injected into a mold appropriately
shaped in accordance with the design of the component to be cast. The wax is
solidified to form a wax model, and the wax model with an embedded ceramic core
is repeatedly dipped in ceramic slurry to form a ceramic shell around the wax
pattern. After removing the wax, all that remains is the ceramic core disposed in
and attached to the ceramic shell mold, thereby forming a mold-core assembly.
The component is cast by solidifying molten metal in the mold-core assembly.
The ceramic mold is then removed and the core is leached out. Wang i-fi-1104--106;
see also Wang i-f 11 ("The molten metal is cooled and solidifies, and then the
external shell and internal core are suitably removed leaving behind the desired
metallic turbine blade in which the internal cooling passages are found.").
4
Appeal2015-005773
Application 13/248,338
made of a single material and Wang forms a component made only of metal. App.
Br. 5 (citing Govern, col. 5, 11. 34--65; Wang i-f 11).
In the rejection on appeal, the Examiner does not rely on the final product of
the casting method in either Govern or Wang. Rather, the Examiner relies on an
intermediate product formed in those methods. The Examiner finds:
Though the ceramic materials of the core and shell are not part of the
final casting in either Govern or Wang, the solidified metal
surrounding the ceramic casting core is considered to be an
intermediate product that is equated to Applicant's product of
solidified metal surrounding the spar.
Ans. 4.
In response, the Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art "would
not understand an 'intermediate product' to be the equivalent of a cast 'hybrid
component."' Reply Br. 4, n.1. 7
The Appellants' argument is persuasive of reversible error. The Appellants
disclose that exemplary hybrid components include "a turbine blade for a turbine
section of a gas turbine engine" and "aeronautical components including blades,
vanes, panels, boas and any other structural part of the gas turbine engine." Spec.
i-f 30. Based on that disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that a hybrid component formed by the claimed method must be
capable of performing its intended final end use, e.g., a turbine blade for a turbine
section of a gas turbine engine. 8 See Spec. i-f 30. Clearly, the intermediate
7 Reply Brief dated May 13, 2015.
8 See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (during examination, "the
PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained
in the applicant's specification").
5
Appeal2015-005773
Application 13/248,338
products disclosed in Govern and Wang, comprising, inter alia, a casting core, are
not capable of performing their intended final end uses. See e.g., Govern, col. 2, 11.
52---60 (disclosed method fabricates a hollow airfoil); Wang i-f 24 (disclosed method
creates a hollow turbine blade). Rather, the intermediate products disclosed in
Govern and Wang must undergo additional processing steps (e.g., the step of
removing the casting core) to function as intended.
The Examiner concludes that "[t]he current claim language does not
preclude that further processing steps occur after solidification of the molten metal
around the spar within the casting die." Ans. 4. To the contrary, claims 1 and 32
both recite the step of "solidifying the molten metal within the cavity to form [a]
hybrid component" (App. Br. 9, 11 (emphasis added)). Thus, in the claimed
method, solidification of the molten metal forms the hybrid component.
Similarly, claim 31 recites the step of "die casting the hybrid gas turbine
engine component in a die casting process." App. Br. 10. That is, the hybrid gas
turbine engine component is fonned by die casting. According to the casting
methods disclosed in Govern and Wang, hollow components are formed by
removing a casting core after the molten metal is solidified. The Examiner has
failed to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that die
casting includes the step of removing a casting core. For that reason, the Examiner
has failed to show that the step of "die casting the hybrid gas turbine engine
component in a die casting process" is taught by either Govern or Wang. See App.
Br. 10.
6
Appeal2015-005773
Application 13/248,338
Based on the foregoing, the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 31, and 32 are
not sustained. 9
The Examiner's reliance on the remaining prior art of record in the
rejections of dependent claims 2-8 and 21-30 does not cure the deficiencies
identified above. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2-8 and 21-30 are
not sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
9 In the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 32, the Examiner relies on Schirra to show the
claimed shot tube and shot tube plunger. Final 12-13.
7