Ex Parte Grüger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12745909 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/745,909 06/03/2010 Birgit Griiger 2007P24460WOUS 5481
22116 7590 12/21/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
AMICK, JACOB M
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIRGIT GRUGER, ELKE HENSCHEL,
JOACHIM SKOCZOWSKI, and MARTIN STAPPER
Appeal 2015-001403
Application 12/745,909
Technology Center 3700
Before: BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
decision to reject claims 9—14, 16—25, and 21—29} We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Although the Final Rejection rejects claims 9—14, 16—25, and 27,
Appellants filed an Amendment After Final on February 27, 2014, which
added new claims 28 and 29. The Advisory Action dated March 12, 2014,
indicates this Amendment was entered and that claims 28 and 29 are
rejected.
Appeal 2015-001403
Application 12/745,909
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a machine component for a gas turbine.
Claim 9, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
9. A machine component, comprising:
a base body, comprising:
a base material;
wherein the base body is equipped in a partial region of a
surface with a plating,
wherein the plating is made of an application material with
a greater hardness and/or toughness than the base material, and
wherein the plating is formed by a plurality of plating
elements, the plurality of plating elements are applied to the base
body tilted in their longitudinal direction in relation to a main
flow direction of a hot gas flowing through the base body, and
wherein the plating elements are arranged about the base
body in a spiral manner thereby allowing an application of the
plating elements to the base material such that stress on the base
material is reduced.
Br. 8 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Coughlin et al. US
(“Coughlin”)
Subramanian US
2002/0088785 A1
2002/0172799 A1
July 11,2002
Nov. 21,2002
REJECTION
Claims 9—14, 16—25, and 27—29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Subramanian and Coughlin. Advisory Act. 2 (dated
March 12, 2014).
2
Appeal 2015-001403
Application 12/745,909
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Subramanian teaches many of the features
recited in claim 9, but does not disclose plating elements arranged about a
base body in a spiral manner. Advisory Act. 2. Nonetheless, the Examiner
finds that Coughlin teaches welding a cylinder via a spiral weld, such that
the weld is continuous and reduces stress. Id. The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious “to configure the component of Subramanian such
that the plating elements are arranged about the base body in a spiral
manner. As Subramanian allows for such a modification and as Coughlin
discloses the benefits of performing such a weld (generally continuous
material deposition).” Id.
Appellants assert that Coughlin discloses a spiral weld, but:
[T]he spiral weld is just a continuous spiral weld and does not
relate to an application of plating elements to a base body in a
spiral manner. Thus, there is no reasoning for one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize the continuous weld of [Coughlin] for
applying plating elements to a base body.
Br. 7.
In response, the Examiner states, “Coughlin teaches depositing weld
material in spiral along a cylindrical wall, such that the weld has a
continuous bead. Such a weld deposit is equally applicable to both Coughlin
and Appellant.” Ans. 11.
Coughlin is directed to producing tanks by feeding source material
into a spiral mill to create a cylinder. See Coughlin | 6. Describing the
process of welding the tank, Coughlin states “[t]he material second edge is
positioned adjacent the first edge, and a continuous weld at the interface
3
Appeal 2015-001403
Application 12/745,909
maintains the material in the formed cylinder.” Coughlin | 6, see also Figs.
4 and 6.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Coughlin teaches that a
spiral weld, provided in the context of producing a cylindrical tank, provides
a benefit (namely, continuity of the weld/continuous material deposition).
However, we do not agree that this benefit would have led a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Subramanian as proposed by the
Examiner. In Coughlin, the shape of the weld is based upon the shape of the
seam being welded, which is spiral because of the process used to produce
the cylindrical tank from non-cylindrical material. See Coughlin || 19—21.
In other words, in Coughlin, the shape of the seam determines the shape of
the weld, not the other way around. As for the benefit that the Examiner
finds would result from providing a spiral arrangement as taught by
Coughlin, i.e., the provision of a continuous weld, the Examiner does not
explain how the spiral arrangement of plating elements would result in this
benefit when other arrangements do not. In other words, it appears that
other geometries would also allow for continuous welds when attaching
plating elements to a base body, and the spiral shape of the weld is
beneficial in Coughlin because of the particular process used to manufacture
Coughlin’s cylindrical tanks from strips of material. Further, Subramanian
appears to discourage the use of welding in attaching plating elements. See
Subramanian 14. Thus, the Examiner’s rationale for modifying
Subramanian to provide plating elements in a spiral arrangement, as recited
in claim 9, is inadequate. The other independent claim, claim 19, contains a
similar limitation. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
4
Appeal 2015-001403
Application 12/745,909
claims 9—14, 16—25, and 27—29 as unpatentable over Subramanian and
Coughlin.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9—14, 16—25, and 27—29 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5