Ex Parte Milleville

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

11786501 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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.
11/786,501 04/12/2007 Timothy A. Milleville PA-2903-U;67097-784PUS1 7491
54549 7590 08/01/2013
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
EDGAR, RICHARD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TIMOTHY A. MILLEVILLE
____________________

Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are related to gas turbine engine components having a
protective coating on selected portions thereof. Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim
1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A gas turbine engine component comprising:
a blade section having an inner end and an outer end;
a shroud section at the outer end;
a platform section at the inner end; and
a protective coating disposed on the shroud section,
wherein the blade section is substantially free of the protective
coating.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Walker
Shepherd
Biondo
Nichols
Allen
Lafarge
Schrey
Box
US 5,197,852
US 5,252,026
US 5,783,318
US 6,126,400
US 6,435,835 B1
US 6,830,427 B2
WO 2006/111427 A1
WO 2006/061431 A2
Mar. 30, 1993
Oct. 12, 1993
Jul. 21, 1998
Oct. 3, 2000
Aug. 20, 2002
Dec. 14, 2004
Oct. 26, 2006
Jun. 15, 2006
Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
3
REJECTIONS
The following grounds of rejection are to be reviewed on appeal:1
B2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-13, 16, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nichols.
C. Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Walker.
D. Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lafarge.
E. Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Shepherd.
F. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Schrey.
G. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Box and Allen.
H. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Box and Allen and Nichols.
I. Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Box, Allen, and Biondo.
J. Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nichols.

1 The rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn. Ans. 9.
2 Examiner and Appellant use letter “A” to discuss the withdrawn rejection.
Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
4
ANALYSIS
B. Anticipation by Nichols
Addressing claims 1, 10 and 13, the Examiner finds that Nichols
discloses “a blade section that is substantially free of the protective coating,”
because “Nichols teaches, preferably, 20% of the blade span between the
radius and base is coated (col. 3, lines 61-65). Thus, 80% is free of the
coating. 80% is a substantial amount.” Ans. 10. Appellant argues that “the
conclusion that 20% is substantially free is an unsupported allegation and
does not establish anticipation.” App. Br. 6. The Appellant further argues
that “the Nichols reference in fact suggests that 20% is substantial . . .
because the coating is required to protect the blade surface from gas flow
(Nichols, col. 2, 11. 8-23).” Id.
For this matter it is necessary to determine the meaning of the word
“substantially.” In this case, the Specification is silent as to any special
meaning of the word “substantially.” Appellant’s arguments do not apprise
us of any clear limit to the term.
Looking to a dictionary we obtain a definition “being largely but not
wholly that which is specified.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
(www.merriamwebster.com/ dictionary/substantial) (last visited July, 12,
2013). We discern nothing in the Specification that is inconsistent with this
ordinary meaning. Applying this definition, we agree with the Examiner
that 80 percent free of protective coating is “largely but not wholly free” or
“substantially free” of protective coating as required by claim 1. Therefore,
we sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 13 and
dependent claims 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 22 which are not separately
argued.

Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
5
C. Anticipation by Walker
Addressing claims 13 and 16, the claim element at issue is “forming a
protective coating on at least a portion of at least one of the shroud section
and an underside and a topside of the platform section.” Claims App’x. The
Examiner contends that “the proper claim interpretation is that a coating
must be only on a portion of one of the shroud, the underside of the platform
and the topside of the platform,” meaning that the limitation is satisfied if a
portion of either the topside or the underside is coated. Ans. 11. The
Examiner finds that “Walker et al. teach forming a protective coating 90, 92
on the platform/shroud section, and the blade section 49 is free of the
coating.3” Id. Appellant argues that
Claim 13 recites, "at least one of," two group members: (1) "a
shroud section"; and (2) "an underside and topside of the
platform section." The word "and" in claim 13, which is used to
indicate, "an underside and a topside," infers that both recited
sides have at least a portion coated as opposed to just one side
having a portion coated. The Examiner's argument of having a
coating on either the topside or the underside improperly
equates "an underside and a topside" to mean "an underside or
a topside."
App. Br. 7. Appellant further argues that “[the] Specification recites,
‘optionally, the topside 40 and the underside 42 of the platform section 34
also include the aluminide coating 52’indicating that the topside and the
underside includes [sic] both sides, not one.” App. Br. 8 (quoting Spec., p.
3, ll. 14-21). Furthermore, Appellant argues that in order to overcome prior
art having protective coatings somewhere on the platform, Appellant

3 The Examiner’s findings are unclear if the shroud has a protective coating.
However, it is clear that the protective coating of Walker is only on the
upper surface of the platform 54. See Walker fig. 4, first layer 90 and second
layer 92.
Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
6
amended the claim to include the additional limitation of “an underside and
a topside” of the platform section. Id.
We find the Appellants arguments to be persuasive. First, the claim
language indicates a choice between coating one “section” or another, i.e.
coating the shroud section or coating the platform section. Second, the
Specification does not support applying a protective coating to one of the
upper portion or the lower portion of the platform section without coating
the other portion. Finally, Appellant made an amendment directed to
overcoming prior art teachings of protective coatings “somewhere” on the
platform section by amending the claim to read upper portion and lower
portion of the platform section. Thus, the Examiner erred in finding that the
claim language is anticipated by coatings applied anywhere on the platform
section. As such, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 13
and 16 as anticipated by Walker.

D. Anticipation by Lafarge
Again, addressing claims 13 and 16, the Examiner makes findings
similar to the findings with regard to Walker about forming a protective
coating on at least a portion of “at least one of the shroud section and an
underside and a topside of the platform section.” Ans. 5. Appellant
counters with the same arguments presented above. For the same reasons,
we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 13 and 15 as
anticipated by Lafarge.

E. Anticipation by Shepherd
Once more, addressing claims 13 and 16, the Examiner makes
findings similar to the findings with regard to Walker about forming a
Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
7
protective coating on at least a portion of “at least one of the shroud section
and an underside and a topside of the platform section.” Ans. 5. Appellant
counters with the same arguments presented above. For the same reasons,
we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 13 and 15 as
anticipated by Shepherd.

F. Anticipation by Schrey
Addressing claims 1, 10, 11, and 13, Schrey does not show the bottom
portion of the turbine blade having a platform. To address this deficiency,
the Examiner finds that Schrey has “an inherent platform section at the inner
end (see step or ledge in FIG. 1 on shaft); and a protective coating 28
disposed on the shroud 20 (see FIG. 3), wherein the blade section is free of
the coating.” Ans. 6. Appellant argues that “Schrey does not explicitly
disclose a platform section at the inner end because the blade section 6
extends and appears to be attached to the turbine shaft 4 at the inner end.”
App. Br. 9. The Examiner responds that “the shaft 4 of Schrey is ‘a platform
section at the inner end’ of the blade section, or that the step or ledge shown
in FIG. 1 constitutes a platform or something that acts as a platform.” Ans.
11.
We agree with the Examiner that if the blade section 6 is attached to a
shaft 4, the outer portion of the shaft 4 would be a platform that constrains
the airflow at the root of the airfoil. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 11 are
anticipated by Schrey. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10, and
11 as anticipated by Schrey.
However, addressing claim 13, if the outer portion of the shaft 4 of
Schrey is a “platform,” it would not inherently have an underside because
the shaft may be solid. Therefore, claim 13 would not be anticipated
Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
8
because it is not inherent that there is both and topside and underside to the
platform. As such, we do not sustain the rejection claim 13 as anticipated by
Schrey.

G. Obviousness over Box and Allen
Addressing claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-17, the Examiner finds that Box
teaches substantially all of the claim limitations, but “does not expressly
state to keep the airfoil substantially free of the coating.” Ans. 6. The
Examiner finds
Box et al. does not expressly state to keep the airfoil
substantially free of the coating. Allen et al. teach an aluminide
coating to the parts of a turbine component shielded from the
primary turbine gas path which are exposed to relatively high
stress and corrosive conditions (see col. 3, lines 44-47).
Additionally, Allen et al. teach in the background that because
the coating adds weight to the rotating components, there is
"motivation to restrict the use of coating to those portions of the
blade (typically the primary gas path surfaces) where it is
absolutely required."
Id.. The Examiner then determines that
it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade
of Box et al. by not applying the coating on the airfoil 3, and
instead, forming film cooling holes on the blade, as taught by
Allen et al. for the purpose of reducing the weight of the rotor
blades.
Ans. 6-7. Appellant counters that
modifying the coating components of Box to be limited to areas
described in Allen was improper because it would render Box
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Box requires
that all components, specifically including the airfoil or blade
section, must have the initial protective coating to protect
Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
9
against hot corrosion of the gas turbine engine rotor blade (Box,
p. 1, ll. 19-25; p. 3, ll. 7- 9).
App. Br. 10. The Examiner responds that “but nowhere in the reference
does Box et al. require the coating to be applied to the entire blade surface.
. . Box would not be made unsatisfactory for its intended purpose by the
modification because even Box et al. teach[es] applying a second coating to
selective areas.” Ans. 11-12. We agree with the Examiner. Given that Box
teaches the selective use of the second coating, the Examiner’s rationale is
reasonable, even if it also teaches applying an initial protective coating to all
components. In particular, Appellant makes no showing that the Examiner
has erred by finding that Box’s second coating could be selectively used to
save weight in areas where film cooling is used. As such, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-17 as unpatentable over Box and Allen.

H. Obviousness over Box, Allen, and Nichols
Addressing claim 2, in addition to the findings above, the Examiner
finds that Nichols teaches “the use of a coating applied along the fillet 30 a
distance ‘d’ below the fillet, whereby the distance ‘d’ is minimized to reduce
the weight of the coating (see col. 5, lines 5-13).” Ans. 7. Appellant argues
that the additional teachings of Nichols do not cure the deficiencies of the
rejection to claim 1 over Box and Allen alone. As there is no deficiency in
the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Box and Allen, we
sustain the rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Box, Allen, and
Nichols.

Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
10
I. Obviousness over Box, Allen, and Biondo
Addressing claims 5, 6, 18, and 19, in addition to the findings above,
the Examiner finds that Biondo teaches “repair of a nickel-based superalloy
and subsequent coating with an aluminide alloy (see col. 7, line 59 to col. 8,
line 61) for the purpose of repair of a nickel-based superalloy.” Ans. 8.
Appellant only argues that the additional teachings of Biondo do not cure the
deficiencies of the rejection to claims 1 or 13 over Box and Allen alone. As
there is no deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 or 13 as unpatentable over
Box and Allen, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 as
unpatentable over Box, Allen, and Nichols.

J. Obviousness over Nichols
Claims 21 and 23 further include the claim limitation that the
protective coating “diminishes across the fillet.” App. Br. Claims App’x.
To address this limitation, the Examiner determines
a diminished coating across the fillet would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was
made because Nichols et al. teach a tapered coating for
reducing thermally-induced stresses in the vicinity of the
termination of the coating. Nichols also teaches that the
distance 'd' may be a smaller value than 20% of the span "as
long as the stresses resulting from the transition are lowered"
(col. 3 to col. 4 sentence). Thus, one having ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious at the time the invention was
made to make the distance 'd' substantially zero, as long as
transition stresses between the shroud and the blade are
lowered, thus requiring the coating to taper across the fillet, for
the purpose of reducing the amount of coating applied to the
blade airfoil, thus reducing the weight thereof.
Ans. 9. Appellant argues “the thermal barrier coating is not diminishing
across the identified fillet radius, it would not have been obvious to one of
Appeal 2011-005042
Application 11/786,501
11
ordinary skill in the art that Nichols would teach a smoothly blended
transition across the fillet.” App. Br. 12. We agree with the Appellant. The
Examiner proposes that if the distance “d” were reduced to zero, the coating
would taper across the fillet. However, the distances “d” begins at the
beginning of the fillet radius on the shroud. See. Nichols figs. 2 and 3.
Reducing this distance “d” to “substantially zero” would place no protective
coating on the fillet radius. Thus, the coating would not “diminish across the
fillet radius” as proposed by the Examiner, but rather would diminish on the
platform where “d” starts before the fillet radius. Also, it is unclear how
the “transition stresses between the shroud and the blade would be lowered”
if no coating is applied to the transition as the Examiner reasons. Nichols
teaches that extending the coating a distance below the transition is needed
to reduce stress. col. 3, ll. 55-62. There is no teaching that the lack of
coating on the transition would reduce stress. As such, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 21 and 23.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20,
22 is affirmed and the decision to reject claims 21 and 23 is reversed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh