Ex Parte Cretegny et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2016

13614278 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/614,278 09/13/2012
6147 7590 05/13/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE
BLDG. Kl-3A59
NISKAYUNA, NY 12309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Laurent Cretegny
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.
230507-2 2813
EXAMINER
GAMINO, CARLOS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2016 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAURENT CRETEGNY, SUNDAR AMANCHERLA,
JEFFREY JON SCHOONOVER, and
BALASUBRAMANIAM VAIDHYANATHAN 1
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, and 15-26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
Appellants claim a process of brazing with microwave radiation
comprising applying a braze material comprising first particles of a metallic
material and second particles comprising nonmetallic material chosen from
the group consisting of oxides, carbides, and nitrides of at least one metal,
wherein the nonmetallic material of the second particles is more susceptible
to heating by microwave radiation than the metallic material of the first
particles (independent claim 1 ). Appellants also claim a similar process
wherein the nonmetallic material is chosen from the group consisting of
oxides, carbides, and nitrides of at least one of manganese, nickel, copper,
tungsten, tantalum, chromium, and iron (remaining independent claim 24).
A copy of representative claims 1 and 24, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A process, comprising:
applying a braze material to a surface of at least a first substrate, the
braze material comprising
a plurality of first particles of a metallic material having a melting
point, and
a plurality of second particles comprising at least one nonmetallic
material chosen from the group consisting of oxides, carbides, and nitrides
of at least one metal, the nonmetallic material of the second particles being
more susceptible to heating by microwave radiation than the metallic
material of the first particles, and the nonmetallic material being present in
the braze material in an amount sufficient to enable the first particles to
completely melt when the first and second particles are subjected to heating
by microwave radiation;
heating the braze material with microwave radiation to sufficiently
heat at least the second particles to cause the first particles to completely
melt; and then allowing the molten first particles to cool, solidify, and form a
solid brazement.
2
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
24. A process, comprising:
applying a braze material to a surface of at least a first substrate, the
braze material comprising
a plurality of first particles of a metallic material having a melting
point, and
a plurality of second particles comprising at least one nonmetallic
material chosen from the group consisting of oxides, carbides, and nitrides
of at least one of manganese, nickel, copper, tungsten, tantalum, chromium,
and iron, the nonmetallic material of the second particles being more
susceptible to heating by microwave radiation than the metallic material of
the first particles, and the nonmetallic material being present in the braze
material in an amount sufficient to enable the first particles to completely
melt when the first and second particles are subjected to heating by
microwave radiation; and
heating the braze material with microwave radiation to sufficiently
heat at least the second particles to cause the first particles to completely
melt.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 7, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Nishikawa (US 2006/020193 5 Al, published Sep. 14,
2006) (Final Action 2--4).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
claims 3 and 19 over Nishikawa and Bruck (US 2005/0022382 Al,
published Feb. 3, 2005) (id. at 4--5);
claim 9 over Nishikawa, Fuller (US 4,505,787, patented Mar. 19,
1985), Landingham (US 5,925,039, patented Jul. 20, 1999), and Mastrangelo
(US 4,359,414, patented Nov. 16, 1982) (id. at 5---6);
claim 15 over Nishikawa alone (id. at 6-7);
claims 16, 17, 24, and 25 over Nishikawa and Fuller (id. at 7-9);
claims 20 and 26 over Nishikawa alone or in combination with Fuller
and further in view of Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (id. at 9-10);
3
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
claims 21-23 over Nishikawa and Cretegny (US 7,326,892 Bl,
patented Feb. 5, 2008) (id. at 10-12);
claim 21 over Nishikawa and Ishida (US 6,691,908 B2, patented Feb.
17, 2004) (id. at 12);
claim 22 over Nishikawa, Ishida, and Barmatz (US 5,847,355,
patented Dec. 8, 1998) (id. at 12-13); and
claim 23 over Nishikawa and Kuroshima (JP 2002-793 71 A,
published Mar. 19, 2002, as translated) (id. at 13).
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain each of the above
rejections except for the rejection of claims 21-23 over Nishikawa and
Cretegny.
The § 102 Rejection
~1 (\ -1 f\I"'\ • ' • • • 1 '1 T"""1 • , 1 •
l ne s l UL reJecnon 1s prem1sea on tne 1::1,Xammer s crn1m
interpretation that the metal carbides of the claim 1 nonmetallic material
encompass the silicon carbide taught by Nishikawa to generate heat upon
application of microwaves in a microwave brazing process (Final Action 2-
3 (citing Nishikawa i-fi-132, 33, and 36)).
Appellants argue that such an interpretation is not consistent with
their Specification disclosure "for example at paragraph [0025]" (App. Br.
7).
The Evidence Appendix of the Appeal Brief contains evidence cited
by the Examiner and by Appellants showing that silicon is referred to in the
4
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
art sometimes as a metal and sometimes as a nonmetallic element. In this
regard, the Specification disclosure does not state whether silicon is
considered a metal or a nonmetallic element and does not define the "metal"
of the claim 1 metal carbides in terms of including versus excluding silicon.
For example, the above-noted Specification disclosure cited by Appellants
recites "microwave-susceptible materials are generally ceramics that
include, but are not limited to, oxides, carbides, and nitrides of manganese,
nickel, copper, tungsten, tantalum, chromium, and iron" (Spec. i-f 25) without
definitively stating whether or not the materials include silicon carbide.
However, the Specification expressly teaches that, "[i]n an
investigation leading to the present technology" (Spec. i-f 31 ), various oxides,
nitrides, and carbides including carbides of chromium and silicon were
mixed with metal alloy powder and subjected to heating with microwave
radiation (id.). The following results are reported:
Compared to the metal alloy powder, the powder mixtures contammg
NiO, Mn02, Cr3C2, Cr2N, SiC, and ShN4 were heated to a higher
temperature under the same experimental conditions, with the best
results being obtained with the powders containing NiO and Mn02 .
Powders of chromium and silicon carbides and nitrides did not perform
as well, yet performed better than the baseline metall [sic] alloy powder
alone. (Id.).
The above teaching groups the performance of chromium and silicon
carbides together stating that these carbides "did not perform as well, yet
performed better than the baseline metal[] alloy powder alone" (id. at last
sentence). We emphasize that the carbides of claim 1 indisputably
encompass chromium carbide (see, e.g., dependent claim 16). Appellants'
5
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
interpretation of claim 1 as excluding silicon carbide is not consistent with
the fact that the Specification groups the performance of chromium and
silicon carbides together and the fact that the carbides of claim 1
unquestionably include chromium carbide.
These circumstances lead us to determine that one having ordinary
skill in the art would consider it reasonable and consistent with Appellants'
Specification to interpret claim 1 as encompassing silicon carbide in addition
to chromium carbide. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
13 64 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (during examination, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Appellants also contend that the § 102 rejection of claim 4 is improper
because "Nishikawa clearly discloses in paragraph [0032] that the SiC
powder is dissolved into solvent and then mixed with the flux" (App. Br. 8)
and therefore would not result in the claimed solid brazement containing a
dispersion of the second particles (id.).
Appellants' contention is not persuasive for a number of reasons. As
convincingly explained by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art
reading Nishikawa's disclosure would understand that the silicon carbide
powder would not completely dissolve into solution because silicon carbide
particles must be present to generate heat upon application of microwaves as
desired by Nishikawa (Ans. 4). Moreover, Nishikawa's disclosure of using
solvent to mix silicon carbide with flux is not relevant to Nishikawa's
6
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
additional teaching that silicon carbide powder alternatively can be mixed
with the brazing material (Nishikawa i-f 32). Finally, Appellants do not
explain why the silicon carbide powder, whether mixed with flux or brazing
material, would not become the claimed dispersion in a solid brazement as a
result of the heating and other brazing steps.
For these reasons, we sustain the§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, and
18 as anticipated by Nishikawa. 2
The§ 103 Rejections
In rejecting claim 15 over Nishikawa alone, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to use a superalloy as the brazing material
of Nishikawa as required by the claim (Final Action 6-7).
Appellants argue that "[t ]he rejection of claim 15 is devoid of
evidentiary support" (App. Br. 8).
In response, the Examiner correctly points out that Appellants admit
in their Specification that superalloy brazing materials were known in the
prior art (Ans. 4 (citing Spec. i-fi-13---6) ). Significantly, Appellants in their
Reply Brief do not deny this admission (see Reply Br. 4 ). Contrary to
Appellants' argument, therefore, the record contains evidentiary support, in
the form of Appellants' admission regarding the prior art, for the Examiner's
2 Appellants do not present arguments specifically directed to the rejection
of claims 7 and 18.
7
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
conclusion that it would have been obvious to use a superalloy as the brazing
material of Nishikawa.
As a consequence, we also sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 15 as
unpatentable over Nishikawa.
In the rejection of claims 16, 17, 24, and 25, the Examiner finds that
Nishikawa discloses using silicon dioxide, silicon carbide "or the like"
(Nishikawa i-f 3 6) as a material for generating heat upon application of
microwaves (Final Action 7-9) and concludes that it would have been
obvious to use as Nishikawa's heat generating material a manganese or
nickel oxide as claimed in view of Fuller's disclosure that such materials
were known to be susceptible to heating by microwave energy (id. (citing
Fuller col. 1, 11. 45---60)).
Appellants argue that Fuller is non-analogous art.
A reference is considered to be analogous art if "is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned." In re
Kahn, 441F.3d977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
According to the Specification, Appellants were concerned with the
problem of how to effectively heat with microwaves metallic braze materials
that are not susceptible to microwave heating and solved this problem by
combining these metallic materials with nonmetallic materials that are more
susceptible to microwave heating (see, e.g., Spec. i-fi-18: 10). The cited
disclosure of Fuller relates to a prior art patent that provides microwave
8
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
heatability to an article made of basic materials not susceptible to microwave
heating by combining these basic materials with nonmetallic materials that
are susceptible to heating by microwaves. This disclosure is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which Appellants were concerned. For this
reason, we perceive no convincing merit in Appellants' position that Fuller
is non-analogous art.
We sustain, therefore, the § 103 rejections of claims 16, 17, 24, and 25
as unpatentable over Nishikawa and Fuller.
Appellants contest the rejection of claims 21-23 over Nishikawa and
Cretegny by arguing that the Cretegny reference qualifies as prior art only
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and therefore may not be relied upon under 35
U.S.C. § 103(c) because this reference and the subject application are both
owned by General Electric Company (App. Br. 9). The Examiner's Answer
does not address, and therefore does not reveal error in, Appellants'
seemingly meritorious argument (Ans. 2-5).
Under these circumstances, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of
claims 21-23 over Nishikawa and Cretegny.
Appellants do not present arguments specifically directed to the
remaining§ 103 rejections not discussed above (see App. Br. 8-10).
Accordingly, we sustain these remaining rejections.
9
Appeal2014-007278
Application 13/614,278
Conclusion
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10