Ex Parte Clark et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 23, 2011

11702607 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DANIEL CLARK and JEFFREY ALLEN
____________

Appeal 2010-006169
Application 11/702,607
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 An oral hearing was held on April 13, 2011.

Appeal 2010-006169
Application 11/702,607
2

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of forming a
metal matrix composite (MMC) in a manner such that a substantial majority
of fibrous particles are caused to be aligned in substantially the same
direction upon bringing a region of the metal matrix into a molten state by
heating and feeding the fibrous particles therein. As opposed to the poor
stiffness reportedly achieved with the prior art process of U.S. Patent No.
4,625,095 (Das) (Spec. 2, first full paragraph), Appellants disclose feeding
the fibrous particles into the molten metal matrix “in a directionally
controlled manner, whereby the Young’s modulus of the resultant cooled
MMC is controlled in one or more particular direction and optionally at one
or more particular location” (paragraph bridging Spec. 2-3). Appellants
disclose, for example, using “elongate fibrous particles having a longitudinal
dimension (y dimension) substantially longer than in the prior art, for
example at least about 0.7 mm in length . . .;” that is, 700 microns or more in
length (Spec. 4). As one alternative for achieving the desired alignment of
the fibrous particles, Appellants teach that (Spec. 14):
when the fibrous material is in the form of fibrous
particles, the particles may suitably be contacted with the
molten metal matrix by introducing the particles into the
molten zone from a fluidi[z]ed or other suitable feed
hopper, through a delivery tube which is lined with a low
friction material and which is sufficiently narrow that a
majority of the particles have a preference to pass down
the tube with their longitudinal axes aligned with the
stream direction. The particles will then enter the molten
zone in a generally uniformly aligned manner.

Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative and
reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-006169
Application 11/702,607
3
1. A method of forming a metal matrix composite comprising a metal
matrix and a fibrous material embedded therein, the method
comprising:
bringing a region of the metal matrix into a molten state to form a
molten metal matrix by heating and feeding fibrous particles into the
metal matrix in the molten state to align at least a substantial majority
of the fibrous particles in substantially the same direction,
wherein a Young’s modulus of a resultant cooled metal matrix
composite is controlled in at least one particular direction and
optionally in at least one particular location.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Das 4,625,095 Nov. 25, 1986
Shira 4,782,205 Nov. 1, 1988
Banas 4,691,093 Sep. 1, 1987
Jolly 4,995,444 Feb. 26, 1991
Attwell 4,090,827 May 23, 1978
Andrees 2004/0020904 Feb. 5, 2004

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Das. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Das in view of Shira. Claim 6 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das in view of
Banas. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Das in view of Jolly. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das in view of Attwell.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Das in view of Andrees.
Appeal 2010-006169
Application 11/702,607
4
We reverse the stated rejections for substantially the reasons set forth
by Appellants in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We provide the
following for emphasis.
Das is directed to a method of joining metal matrix composite (MMC)
articles to each other or other articles by welding using fiber reinforced
metal matrix welding material (col. 1, l 47- col. 2, l. 50).
Das discloses that “[m]etal matrix composites have fibrous reinforcing
material dispersed in a metal or metal alloy matrix” (col. 2, ll. 67– 68).
Das notes that MMC composite “fibrous material (fibers) may be of
discrete lengths, may be a continuous filament, may be randomly oriented,
or may have a specific orientation to produce anisotropic properties in the
composite” (col. 2, l. 68-col. 3, l.4).
As for Das’s welding method, and unlike Appellants’ fibrous particle
disclosure for use in forming aligned fibrous particles in the claimed method
(Spec. 4), Das discloses that the welding step added “fiber material
preferably [having] a diameter in the range of from 0.1 to 0.4 microns, and
an aspect ratio (length/diameter) in the range of from 20:1 to 200:1” (col. 3,
ll. 60-62). Das describes their welding method as being “useful for welding
both randomly oriented, discontinuous fiber reinforced composites and for
continuous fiber composites" (col. 4, ll. 1-4). Das discloses that (col. 4, ll. 4-
11):
The welded joint will ordinarily possess isotropic
properties. If the weld is being used to join anisotropic
composites, the substantially isotropic nature of the weld
should be considered in evaluating the overall joint design.
It is difficult to orient the fibers in the weld to produce
anisotropic properties analogous to those possessed by the
bodies of composites which are welded.

Appeal 2010-006169
Application 11/702,607
5
Concerning the Examiner’s anticipation/obviousness rejection of
claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14-16 over Das, the Examiner relies on a
disclosure bridging columns two and three of Das with respect to the fibrous
makeup of the MMC article to be welded and couples that with a portion of
the disclosure of Das with respect to Das’s method of forming a weld using
reinforcing fibers (Ans. 4; Das col. 2, ll. 34-45, col. 2, l. 66-col. 3, l. 4).
As indicated by the above and as correctly argued by Appellants, Das
is articulating the makeup of the MMC article to be joined at the portion of
their disclosure bridging columns two and three of the Patent Specification,
not the makeup of the weld as seemingly advanced by the Examiner (App.
Br. 24; Reply Br. 2-3; Ans. 4 and 12-16).
A dispositive issue in this appeal, which we resolve in Appellants’
favor, is whether the Examiner erred in maintaining the
anticipation/obviousness rejections on a conflation of the disclosures of Das
with respect to the MMC composite article makeup and the welding method
employing reinforcing fibers for joining such an article to another article of
Das, while largely ignoring or misinterpreting other relevant disclosures of
Das concerning the welding method particulars and the isotropic properties
of the weld disclosed by Das.
There is a lack of any other disclosure of Das that is otherwise pointed
to by the Examiner that describes or suggests forming an MMC weld or an
MMC article in a manner as claimed.
Thus, the Examiner has not reasonably established that Das’s welding
method describes or suggests a method of forming a metal matrix composite
weld by heating a region of a matrix that it is brought into a molten state and
that feeds fibrous particles into the molten state matrix in a manner “to align
at least a majority of the fibrous particles in substantially the same direction,
Appeal 2010-006169
Application 11/702,607
6
wherein a Young’s modulus of a resultant cooled metal matrix composite is
controlled in at least one particular direction”, as required by rejected
independent claim 1, and all of the so rejected dependent claims.
In essence, we cannot bridge the gap between the applied prior art and
the claimed subject matter and jump to the same anticipation and
obviousness conclusions reached by the Examiner, on this appeal record.
Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation/obviousness
rejection over Das.
Regarding the maintained obviousness rejections of certain dependent
claims on Das taken together with various additionally applied references,
these latter rejections are constructed on top of the foundational error that
the Examiner makes with respect to the anticipation/obviousness rejections
of claim 1, as correctly urged by Appellants (App. Br. 31-33).
It follows that we reverse these latter rejections, on this record.

CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims on the grounds
of record is reversed.
REVERSED

tc