Ex Parte Clark et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 23, 201111702607 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation