Ex Parte Kmetz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 26, 2011

11654302 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MICHAEL A. KMETZ
________________

Appeal 2010-011788
Application 11/654,302
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011788
Application 11/654,302

2
A. Introduction1, 2
Michael A. Kmetz (“Kmetz”) timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the final rejection3 of claims 1 and 4.4 We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal relates to ceramic matrix laminates
(“CML”) comprising a relatively low density ceramic felt core and relatively
high density ceramic matrix composite (“CMC”) face plates that are coupled
to the core by a chemical vapor process. (Spec. 2-3 [0007].) Such sandwich
structures are said to be useful as building materials where high strength to
density ratios are required, e.g., in the aircraft industry. (Id. at 1 [0004].)
High load carrying capability, resistance to torsion, resistance to oxidation at
high temperatures, as well as high strength and toughness at high
temperatures are further desirable characteristics. (Id. at 1-2.) The strength
of the bond between the face plates and the core material is said to be of
special importance. (Id. at 2 [0005].)

1 Application 11/654,302, Ceramic Matrix Laminates,
filed 17 January 2007, claiming the benefit of a provisional application
filed 20 January 2006. The specification is cited as “Spec.” The real party
in interest is listed as United Technologies Corporation (Appeal Brief,
filed 29 March 2010 (“Br.”), 1.)
2 Heard 20 September 2011, before a court reporter. The Official
Transcript, which was not available when this Opinion was entered, will be
made of record.
3 Office action mailed 28 October 2009.
4 Claims 20-26 have been allowed. (Ans. 2-3.) Claims 8-19 have been
canceled. (Amendment after final rejection filed 26 January 2010,
entered 5 February 2010; Br. 1.)
Appeal 2010-011788
Application 11/654,302

3
In embodiments covered by claim 1, the ceramic cloth for the face
plates is coated with boron nitride “to provide an interface between the
fibers [e.g., Nicalon] and the matrix.” (Spec. 10 [0031].) The interface is
said to be required for “proper CMC mechanical properties” (id.), which we
understand to mean stronger fiber-matrix bonding.
Claim 1 reads:
1. A ceramic matrix laminate comprising:
a first and a second face plate, the first face plate having
a density and the second face plate having a density;
a core material having a density,
the core material being disposed between the first and
second face plates; and
the core material being coupled to the first and
second face plates using a chemical vapor process,
wherein the core material density is less than the
first face plate density and the second face plate
density, and
wherein the core material density is
about 0.2 g/cm3 to about 2.0 g/cm3,
the first face plate density is
about 1.9 g/cm3 to about 2.5 g/cm3, and
the second face plate density is
about 1.9 g/cm3 to about 2.5 g/cm3, and
wherein each said face plate comprises a ceramic cloth
material having a plurality of fibers, and
said ceramic cloth being coated with boron nitride.
(Claims App., Br. 15; indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
Appeal 2010-011788
Application 11/654,302

4
In embodiments covered by claim 4, the core is made from hollow
fibers to further reduce the density. The hollow fibers are formed by first
vapor infiltrating a graphite fiber core structure with SiC gas, which coats
the graphite fibers. (Spec. 11-12 [0035].) The graphite is then removed by
oxidation in an air furnace at high temperatures (about 1500°C), leaving
hollow SiC fibers as the core structure. (Id. at 15, [0044]-[0045]).
Claim 4 reads:
4. A ceramic matrix laminate comprising:
a first and a second face plate, the first face plate having
a density and the second face plate having a density;
a prefabricated core material having a density,
the core material being disposed between the first
and second face plates; and
the core material being coupled to the first and
second face plates using a chemical vapor process,
wherein the prefabricated core material density is
in a range of about 0.2 g/cm3 to about 1.0 g/cm3,
and
the prefabricated core material density is less than
the first face plate density and the second face
plate density; and
wherein said core material consists of hollow SiC
fibers.
(Claims App., Br. 15; indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
Appeal 2010-011788
Application 11/654,302

5
The Examiner has maintained the following grounds of rejection:5
A. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
combined teachings of Bauer6 and Kebbede.7
B. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
combined teachings of Bauer and Murata.8
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Claim 1
Kmetz argues that there is no reason to provide the fiber-reinforced
C/SiC composite shaped bodies described by Bauer (friction disks such as
brake or clutch disks) with a cloth face place coated with boron nitride, such
as the repairing tape described by Kebbede. (Br. 7.) Kmetz argues (Br. 6)
that Bauer provides a friction surface comprising a SiC-rich covering layer
that is “divided into segments which are separated from one another by gaps
or bridging zones of a material which is different from the material of the
segments.” (Bauer col. 3, ll. 4-8; ll. 9-15.) The segmentation is said to

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 21 June 2010 (“Ans.”). The Examiner has
withdrawn the rejection of claims 20-26. (Ans. 2, last para.)
6 Moritz Bauer et al., Shaped Body Made of Fiber-Reinforced Composites
having a Segmented Covering Layer, its Production and its Use,
U.S. Patent 6,908,660 B2 (2005).
7 Anteneh Kebbede et al., Method for Repairing Articles of Ceramic
Composites, U.S. Patent 6,820,334 B2 (2004).
8 Hiroshige Murata, Method and Apparatus for Manufacturing Ceramic-
Based Composite Member, U.S. Patent 6,723,381 B1 (2004).
Appeal 2010-011788
Application 11/654,302

6
ensure that thermal stresses in the SiC-rich segments to not result in cracks
that can propagate to larger zones of the covering layer. (Id. at ll. 16-26.)
Nothing in Bauer, according to Kmetz, teaches or suggests forming a face
plate from a ceramic cloth material coated with boron nitride as taught by
Kebbede. (Br. 6, ll. 14-16.) Indeed, covering Bauer’s core with a boron-
nitride impregnated cloth would defeat the essential purpose of Bauer’s
invention. Nor has the Examiner explained how Kebbede might suggest a
segmented surface similar to the segmented surface taught by Bauer.
Because the combination proposed by the Examiner would defeat the
essential purposes of Bauer’s invention, the rejection of claim 1 for
obviousness is REVERSED.9

9 In the Brief (Br. 6, last five lines) and at oral argument, Kmetz argued that
Kebbede teaches coating the SiC fibers with boron nitride in order to
“impart superior debonding stress characteristic while under severe stress
conditions” (cf. Kebbede col. 4, ll. 64-67), and therefore teaches away from
the combination. Read in context, it is clear that by “superior debonding
characteristic,” Kebbede means “superior resistance to debonding.” It
makes no sense to form a strong repair patch on CMC articles intended for
use in high temperature, high stress conditions using substances that impart
weak bonding between fibers and a surrounding matrix. Moreover, Kebbede
Examples 1-4 (Kebbede cols. 8-10) report repairs based on an external patch
of Hi-Nicalon™ fiber-reinforced prepreg tape—a material containing SiC
fibers (Kebbede col. 8, ll. 13-15) that appears to be substantially the same as
the Nicalon fibrous material recommended by Kmetz at, e.g., page 10,
paragraphs [0031] and [0032], and page 13, paragraph [0041], of
the 302 Specification. The same (or substantially the same) materials are
being used in substantially the same manner for substantially the same
purpose, and thus would be expected to have substantially the same
properties.
Appeal 2010-011788
Application 11/654,302

7
Claim 4
The Examiner finds that Murata discloses a ceramic composite
material comprising hollow fiber fabric made from SiC. (Br. 5, citing
Murata, col. 7, ll. 5-10, the initial part of Murata’s claim 3.) The Examiner
maintains it would have been obvious to substitute the hollow SiC fiber
material taught by Murata for the SiC fiber material taught by Bauer.
(Br. 6.)
The Examiner has misapprehended the teachings of Murata. The
“shaped hollow fiber fabric” recited by Murata in claim 3 refers to a
structure such as the hollow cylinder 11, shown in Murata, Figure 2.
Although the hollow cylinder is made of a fiber fabric, and hence is
reasonably referred to as an example of a “shaped hollow fiber-fabric,” the
Examiner has not directed our attention, even after Kmetz’s challenge
(Br. 12, 1st full para., last sentence), to any credible evidence that Murata
teaches or suggests the use of hollow SiC fibers. We therefore REVERSE
the rejection of claim 4.
We note with regard to both rejections that it is not sufficient to
combine references merely because they happen to be “related to a similar
technical field.” (Ans. 5, l. 1 and ll. 18-19.) Rather, it must be shown, by
the preponderance of the evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that the teachings of the references relate to a
particular technical issue; further, that there would have been a reasonable
expectation of successful combination; and still further, that the combination
would have resulted in an embodiment within the scope of the claimed
invention.
Appeal 2010-011788
Application 11/654,302

8
C. Order
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Bauer and Kebbede.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Bauer and Murata.
REVERSED
tc