Ex Parte Fairbourn et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201511721532 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID C. FAIRBOURN and PAUL WALKER ____________ Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 5 through 18, 20, 22, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Appellants’ invention is directed a coating process for protecting a metal or a turbine engine component. App. Br. 4–5. Claim 5 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 5. A coating process for protecting a turbine engine component (10) having a first section (28) with an airflow surface (34) and a second section (32) used to secure the first section (28) to the gas turbine engine, the coating process comprising: Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 2 applying a layer (20) of a silicon-containing fluid composition comprising a silane liquid into direct contact with at least a portion of the second section (32) of the turbine engine component (10), wherein the silane liquid defines an amino silane or includes a mono, bis, or tri-functional trialkoxy silane; curing the silicon-containing fluid composition after the layer (20) is applied to the second section (32) of the turbine engine component (10); and heating the cured silicon-containing fluid composition to a temperature effective to form a non-aluminide protective coating (14) on the second section (32) of the turbine engine component (10), the protective coating (14) including a diffusion zone that includes silicon diffused from the cured silicon-containing fluid composition and that further includes chromium diffused from the material of the turbine engine component (10). The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Bloom US 2,809,139 Oct. 8, 1957 Chang US 3,951,642 Apr. 20, 1976 Modic US 4,189,545 Feb. 19, 1980 van Schaik US 4,369,233 Jan. 18, 1983 Fishman US 4,774,149 Sept. 27, 1988 Coffinberry US 5,900,278 May 4, 1999 Schutt US 2001/0032568 A1 Oct. 25, 2001 Fairbourn US 2002/0179191 A1 Dec. 5, 2002 Harada EP 0 048 083 A1 Mar. 24, 1982 Allen EP 1 111 192 A1 June 27, 2001 Appellants (App. Br. 5–7) request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action: Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 3 I. Claims 5–7, 13, 14, 16–18, 22, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, and Fairbourn. II. Claims 8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, and Fishman. III. Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, Fishman, and van Schaik. IV. Claims 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, and Bloom. V. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, and Chang. VI. Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Coffinberry. VII. Claims 22 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coffinberry and Fairbourn. VIII. Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 17, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coffinberry, Fairbourn, and Allen. IX. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coffinberry, Fairbourn, Allen, and Chang. X. Claims 7 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coffinberry, Fairbourn, and Zheng. XI. Claims 8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coffinberry, Fairbourn, and Modic. XII. Claims 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coffinberry, Fairbourn, Zheng, and Bloom. XIII. Claims 8, 10, 22, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schutt. XIV. Claim 24 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 11/721,564. XV. Claim 22 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 11/721,564 and Fairbourn. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 4 OPINION Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Harada (Rejections I–V) Claims 5–7, 13, 14, 16–18, 22, and 24 (Rejection I)1 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we AFFIRM. Independent claim 5 is directed to a method that requires coating a turbine engine (metal) component with a silicon-containing fluid composition comprising an amino silane or a mono, bis, or trifunctional trialkoxy silane that is cured and heated to provide a non-aluminide protective coating having a diffusion zone containing chromium and silicon. Claim 5. Independent claim 5 also requires providing the non-aluminide protective coating to a section used to secure an airflow section of a turbine engine component to a gas turbine engine. Id. The Examiner found Harada teaches coating a Ni-Cr superalloy turbine engine component by applying a silicon-containing composition to at least a portion of the turbine engine component, curing the composition and subsequently heating the cured composition to form a non-aluminide protective coating on the turbine engine component. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Harada Abstract, 1, 2, 9, 10). The Examiner found Harada does not disclose (1) using the claimed silanes for the silicon-containing fluid composition to 1 Appellants argue independent claims 5, 22 and 24 together. App. Br. 10. We limit our discussion to independent claims 5. In addition, Appellants present separate arguments for dependent claim 14. Id. at 15. Appellants have not presented separate arguments for claims 6, 7, 13 and 16–18. See Appeal Brief, generally. Accordingly, these claims stand or fall with their respective independent claims. Claim 14 will be addressed separately. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 5 form the non-aluminide coating and (2) applying the silicon-containing layer to at least a portion of the turbine airblade used to secure it to the gas turbine engine. Id. at 5. Regarding (1), the Examiner found Fairbourn teaches spraying or brushing silane liquids comprising the claimed mono, bis, or tri- functional trialkoxysilane or amino silanes onto turbine engine blades to form protective coatings containing silicon. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Fairbourn Figure 5, ¶¶ 33–45). The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Fairbourn’s silanes in the process of Harada because it would predictably result in a fluid based Si-containing protective coating on Harada’s turbine engine component. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Fairbourn ¶¶ 33–45). Regarding (2), the Examiner found Allen teaches coating exterior portions of nickel-based turbine blades such as the platform, neck and root to prevent corrosion and/or stress corrosion. Final Act. 5 (citing Allen ¶¶ 4–10, 24, 27). The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the protective coating of Harada onto portions of a turbine blade other than the blade for the benefits taught by Allen. Id. Appellants argue Harada discloses aluminide-based coatings in the examples. App. Br. 11–13; Harada 5–7. Appellants further argue, given Harada’s examples, Harada’s disclosure on page 2 is insufficient basis to conclude Harada either expressly or inherently discloses a non-aluminide coating containing Si absent impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 13. The Examiner found that Harada discloses applying a liquid coating containing at least one of the following, Al, Si, Vr, Ts, or an alloy thereof or a compound thereof over a nickel chromium alloy component as the corrosion resistant material (emphasis added). Final Act. 4; Ans. 4; Harada Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 6 2, 9 (claim 4). The Examiner also found that Harada heats the coated metal component to a temperature of about 1080oC, a temperature within Appellants’ disclosed heating temperatures of greater than 205oC to convert the cured silicon containing layer to a protective coating and cause diffusion of one or more elements from the component into silicon-containing layer. Final Act. 4–5; Harada 10 (claim 9); Spec. ¶¶ 30–31. Thus, the Examiner had a reasonable basis to conclude Harada discloses forming a non- aluminide protective coating having a diffusion zone that includes silicon diffused from the cured silicon-containing fluid composition and chromium diffused from the material of the turbine engine component. Final Act. 4–7. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, one skilled in the art would understand from Harada’s disclosure the liquid coating can contain at least one of Al, Si, Vr, Ts and the like. That is, as noted by the Examiner, Harada suggests a liquid coating containing Si without the addition of other metals. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. It is well settled that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be consideredâ€) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). Appellants argue Fairbourn discloses use of a silane inoculant to enhance an aluminide coating formation in a simple CVD system and, thus, is consistent with Harada, in that both are directed towards aluminde coatings. App. Br. 13; Fairbourn ¶ 5. Appellants further argue that Allen discloses aluminide coatings are optimum for component durability. App. Br. 14. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 7 We are unpersuaded by these arguments as well. Appellants’ arguments fail to address the reason for which the Examiner relied on Fairbourn and Allen. The Examiner relied on Fairbourn as teaching the silanes recited in claim 5 were known to be used as protective coatings for metal components such as jet engine blades. Final Act. 5–6; Fairbourn ¶¶ 33–45. Because Harada contemplates protective coatings based on various materials including Si, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine Harada and Fairbourn in the manner claimed by Appellants. The Examiner further relied on Allen to teach as known to apply a protective coating to other exterior portions of nickel-based turbine blades, such as the platform, neck and root, to prevent corrosion and/or stress corrosion. Final Act. 5; Allen ¶¶ 4–10, 24, 27, 41. As noted above, the Examiner relied on Harada as disclosing corrosive resistant coatings containing silicon but not aluminum. Further, Appellants have not argued the protective coating from the combined teachings of Harada, Fairbourn and Allen does not include diffused chromium. With respect to claim 14, Appellants Fairbourn discloses applying a silane coating on the internal surfaces that forms an aluminide coating. App. Br. 15. Appellants further argue that Harada and Allen do not contemplate or suggest forming their coatings on internal surfaces. Id. We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented by the Examiner. Ans. 7. Moreover, Fairbourn recognizes the benefits of providing a protective coating to internal portions, such as a hollow interior of a cooling hole or passage in a jet engine blade, to prolong the useful life of the jet engine blade. Fairbourn ¶ 8. Given this disclosure, Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 8 been motivated to apply the silicon containing liquid composition from the combined teachings of Harada, Fairbourn, and Allen to provide a protective coating to internal portions of Harada’s turbine engine component. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5–7, 13, 14, 16–18, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Fairbourn, and Allen for the reasons given above and presented by the Examiner. Claims 8 and 10 (Rejection II) The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, and Fishman. Claims 8 and 10 require the addition of a chromium-containing substance to the silicon-containing fluid composition. The Examiner relied on Fishman as teaching the addition of chromium to corrosion resistant coatings to enhance hot corrosion resistance. Final Act. 9; Fishman Abstract, col. 1, l. 50–col. 2, l. 60. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add such a chromium substance to the silicon-containing composition of the combined teachings of Harada, Allen, and Fairbourn for the benefits disclosed by Fishman. Final Act. 9. Appellants argue that the Examiner provides no reason to add additional chromium to the chromium already present in Harada’s alloy. App. Br. 16–17. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. Fishman recognizes chromium as one of the known alloying elements which form self-healing protective surface oxide layers on nickel based superalloys. Fishman col. 1, ll. 30–33. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 9 As noted by the Examiner, Fishman discloses a protective coating that can contain silicon and chromium and further states that the addition of chromium combined with the elimination of aluminum in protective coatings for alloys improve the properties of the coating. Final Act. 9; Fishman col. 1, l. 50–col. 2, l. 60. In other words, Fishman discloses the benefits of non- aluminide coatings that contain increased levels of chromium. Thus, Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have added a chromium-based substance to the silicon-containing composition fluid of Harada given Fishman’s disclosure. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 10 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. Claims 11 and 12 (Rejection IV) The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, and Bloom. Claims 11 and 12 require the chromium-containing substance in the silicon-containing fluid to be β chromium. The Examiner relied on Bloom to teach β chromium as a known alloy component that enhances shock resistance. Final Act. 12; Bloom col. 2, ll. 1–27, col. 3, ll. 33–60, col. 4, ll. 45–56, claim 1. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use β chromium as the chromium containing substance in the silicon-fluid containing composition from the combined teachings of Harada, Allen, and Fairbourn for the benefits disclosed by Bloom. Final Act. 12–13. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 10 Appellants contend diffusion of silicon into the β chromium layer would destroy the ductility of Bloom’s β chromium. App. Br. 20. We are unpersuaded and agree with the Examiner that Appellants have provided no evidence in support of this contention. Ans. 10. Moreover, Harada’s alloy already contains chromium. Harada 2. Appellants have not adequately explained why the addition of another type of chromium, such as β chromium, would have been detrimental to the alloy of Harada. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12 for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. Claim 9 (Rejection III) However, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, Fishman, and van Schaik. Claim 9 requires the inclusion of a halide activator and inert diluent to the silicon-containing fluid. The Examiner relied on van Schaik as teaching the use of halide activators and inert diluents (such as alumina) as coating aids to prevent agglomeration of metallic components in protective coatings for superalloys. Final Act. 11; van Schaik col. 3, ll. 32–55. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate van Schaik’s halide activator and inert diluent in the coating from the combined teachings of Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, and Fishman for the benefits disclosed by van Schaik. Final Act. 11–12. Appellants argue that van Schaik does not teach alumina as an inert diluent. App. Br. 18. According to Appellants, van Schaik’s alumina Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 11 powder is dispersed in the metallic precursor powder and prevents agglomeration of the metallic compounds during heating thereof to generate the vapor for depositing the metal on the specimen. App. Br. 18 (citing van Schaik col. 3, ll. 42–44). We agree. The Examiner directs us to no portion of van Schaik that discloses alumina as an inert diluent. The Examiner does not adequately explain why one skilled in the art would have expected van Schaik’s alumina to act as an inert diluent in Harada’s process for providing a non- aluminide protective coating to a turbine metal component given van Schaik’s disclosure above. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. Claim 20 (Rejection V) We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Harada, Allen, Fairbourn, and Chang. Claim 20 requires the addition of a dopant from the group consisting of yttrium, hafnium and combinations thereof to the silicon-containing fluid composition. The Examiner relied on Chang to teach the use of HfF4 to improve performance life of protective coatings for alloys. Final Act. 14; Chang Abstract, col. 5, ll. 20–50, col. 5, l. 65–col. 6, l. 11. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to Chang’s HfF4 dopant in the silicon-fluid containing composition from the combined teachings of Harada, Allen, and Fairbourn for the benefits disclosed by Chang. Final Act. 14–15. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 12 Appellants argue Chang does not disclose a hafnium dopant dissolvable in a silane liquid. App. Br. 21–22. We agree. The Examiner directs us to no portion of Chang that discloses hafnium as a dopant dissolvable in a silane liquid. The Examiner does not adequately explain why one skilled in the art would have expected Chang’s hafnium dopant to be dissolvable in a silane liquid. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Coffinberry (Rejections VI–XII) Anticipatory Rejection of Claim 24 (Rejection VI) The dispositive issue for this rejection is: Did the Examiner err in determining that Coffinberry describes a method of protecting a metal component with a silicon-containing protective coating having a diffusion zone including chromium silicide with silicon as required by the subject matter of independent claim 24? After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we REVERSE. The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “‘each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.’†In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The need for picking and choosing among disclosed alternatives negates anticipation. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587–88 (CCPA 1972), Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 13 cited with approval in NetMoneyIN Inc. v. VeriSign Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed Cir. 2008). Appellants’ invention is directed to a coating process for protecting a metal component by applying a silicon-containing fluid composition that, after being subjected to a curing and heating step, will have a diffusion zone including chromium silicide and silicon. Claim 24. The Examiner found Coffinberry teaches a coating process for protecting a metal component by applying a layer of a silicon-containing fluid composition comprising a silane onto at least a portion of metal component, curing the applied silicon-containing fluid composition and heating (firing) the cured silicon-containing fluid composition to a temperature effective to form a non-aluminide on the metal component. Final Act. 2; Coffinberry Abstract, col. 1, ll. 25–35, col. 2, ll. 7–50, col. 4, ll. 42–56. The Examiner found Coffinberry does not state that chromium is diffused from the turbine engine component to the silicon-containing non- aluminide protective coating during the heat treatment as required by the subject matter of independent claim 24. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner found the products of the Appellants and the prior art are the same because both use the same materials and process steps and, thus, both would have a diffusion zone as claimed. Id. Appellants argue the Examiner acknowledges that Coffinberry does not disclose chromium is diffused from the turbine engine component to the silicon-containing non-aluminide coating during the heat treatment as claimed. App. Br. 7. We agree. The Examiner notes that Coffinberry discloses chromium as one of a number of components for a nickel superalloy in the Background Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 14 of the Invention. Final Act. 3; Coffinberry col. 1, ll. 27–35. However, the Examiner does not identify a description in Coffinberry that describes applying a protective coating over a nickel-chromium superalloy. Thus, the Examiner has not directed us to where each and every element as set forth in the claim is found in Coffinberry. The Examiner has not adequately explained how Coffinberry’s heating step forms a diffusion zone including chromium silicide with silicon as required by the subject matter of independent claim 24. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has met the minimum threshold of establishing anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 5–8, 10–15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 24 (Rejections VII–XII) The Examiner separately rejected claims 5–8, 10–15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coffinberry in view of a number of secondary references (Rejections VII–XII) (Final Act. 15–26). The Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are premised on Coffinberry describing a method of coating a nickel-chromium based alloy where the silicon-containing coating includes a diffusion zone including chromium silicide with silicon. See Final Action, generally. As discussed above, such is not the case. The Examiner did not cite additional references to teach a nickel-chromium based alloy. Therefore, the Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 15 § 103(a) of claims 5–8, 10–15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections VII–XII) are also reversed for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. We do not reach the sufficiency of the Declaration by David C. Fairbourn (Declaration),2 presented to address Coffinberry (see Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, generally), because the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case. Prior Art Rejection Based on Primary Reference Schutt (Rejection XIII) Claims 8, 10, 22, and 243 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we also REVERSE. Independent claims 22 and 24 require heating a cured silicon- containing coating applied to a metal component to a temperature that forms a diffusion zone containing chromium and Si. The Examiner found Schutt teaches a method for protecting a metal component by applying a silicon-containing fluid composition comprising a silane liquid including a methyltrimethoxysilane and a chromium acetate hydroxide to at least a portion of the metal component, curing the applied composition and heating the cured composition to form a non-aluminide protective coating on the metal component with a diffusion zone including silicon and chromium. Final Act. 27; Schutt Figure 1, Abstract, ¶¶ 39–49, 100, 177, 201, 236, 248–252, 273–275. The Examiner found that Schutt 2 The Declaration filed March 20, 2012 was entered into the record by the Examiner on April 3, 2002. 3 We limit our discussion to independent claims 22 and 24. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 16 discloses heating at temperature ranges that would form the claimed diffusion zone in a non-aluminide coating. Final Act. 27–28. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat at a temperature to yield a protective coating including the claimed diffusion zone. Id. at 27. Appellants argue that the Examiner is relying on a temperature range disclosed in paragraph 273 of Schutt as the temperature for heating the cured composition to form the diffusion zone. App. Br. 33. According to Appellants, the temperature range referenced by the Examiner is an increase in temperature expected due to an exothermic reaction of the coating composition prior to application. App. Br. 33; Schutt ¶¶ 272, 273. We agree. The Examiner has not adequately explained how Schutt’s temperature increase from heating the coating material prior to application would have led one skilled in the art to heating a cured coating applied on a metal component to form a protective coating having the claimed diffusion zone. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 8, 10, 22, and 24 based on the primary reference to Schutt. Provisional Nonstatutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejections (Rejections XIV and V) The Examiner presented separate provisional rejections of claims 22 and 24 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 8 of copending Application No. 11/721,5644 (Rejections XIV and 4 The Examiner relied on US Publication No. 2008/0274290, the published version of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/721,564, in the rejection. Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 17 XV). Final Act. 29–30. The application issued as US Patent No. 8,623,461 on January 7, 2014. A review of the copending Application’s record reveals that, following a Decision by this Board entered June 24, 2013, claim 8 was cancelled in favor of the allowance of the issued claims. Accordingly, we do not reach the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections as moot and refer them to the Examiner to reevaluate their appropriateness. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 5–8, 10–14, 16–18, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the primary reference to Harada (Rejections I–IV) are affirmed. The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the primary reference to Harada (Rejections III and V) are reversed. The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 5–8, 10–15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) based on the primary reference to Coffinberry (Rejections VI–XII) are reversed. The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 8, 10, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the primary reference to Schutt (Rejection XIII) is reversed. We do not reach the provisional rejections on the ground of obviousness double patenting (Rejections (XIV and XV). Appeal 2013-001536 Application 11/721,532 18 TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED-IN-PART cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation