11285564 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2010)

Ex Parte Persky

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 31, 2010

11285564 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte JOSHUA PERSKY ________________ Appeal 2010-000699 Application 11/285,564 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2010-000699 Application 11/285,564 2 The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 23-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a refractory metal core system for use in casting a metal product. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A refractory metal core system for use in casting a metal product, said refractory metal core system comprising a refractory metal core, a layer of aluminum nitride deposited on the refractory metal core, and a layer of alumina deposited over said layer of aluminum nitride and contacting said layer of aluminum nitride. The References Grensing EP 0 810 046 A1 Dec. 3, 1997 Beals EP 1 524 045 A2 Apr. 20, 2005 OPINION Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Beals and Grensing. The issue presented for review is the following: Did the Examiner err in determining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have deposited a layer of aluminum nitride over a refractory metal core based on the teachings of Beals and Grensing. We answer this question in the negative. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided a reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected aluminum nitride from the disclosure of Grensing. (Br. 12). Appellant recognizes that it is the Appeal 2010-000699 Application 11/285,564 3 Examiner’s position that Grensing describes aluminum nitride and titanium nitride as interchangeable for use as an interlayer. However Appellant submits that the Examiner's conclusion as to the interchangeability of these components is based solely on improper hindsight. (Br., paragraph bridging 12 and 13). Appellant argues that the physical properties of titanium nitride and aluminum nitride such as the coefficient of thermal expansion are different and therefore the materials are not truly interchangeable. (Br. 13). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Answer. The Examiner correctly found that Beals discloses the coating of a refractory metal core with a nitride containing material to protect the core from oxidizing during shell fire and from reaction/dissolution during the casting process. (Answer 3; Beals [0014] and [0018]). The Examiner correctly found that Beals discloses the purpose of the nitride interlayer was to increase adherence and increase oxidation resistance as well as reduce coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch. (Answer 3; Beals [0030] and [0032]). The Examiner correctly found that the list of suitable nitride materials, including titanium nitride, disclosed in Beals was not exhaustive and other suitable nitride materials could be utilized so long as the materials have a CTE that closely matches the CTE of molybdenum. (Answer 3-4). The Examiner correctly found that Grensing describes metallic cores that are coated with nitride materials including aluminum nitride and titanium nitride. (Answer 4; Grensing, col. 3, ll. 28-40). The Examiner correctly found that the CTE of aluminum nitride is close to the CTE of molybdenum and is stable and non-reactive for coating the metallic core in a high temperature casting process. (Answer 6). Thus, we concur with the Appeal 2010-000699 Application 11/285,564 4 Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to select aluminum nitride as the nitride layer in the invention of Beals, with a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing adherence and oxidation resistance, as well as stability under high casting temperature. We also note that the Examiner cited evidence (Okuno and Yamano), as well as portions of the present specification ([0014] and [0011]), to explain the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the inherent CTE property of aluminum nitride and molybdenum. (Answer 6). Appellant’s arguments drawn to independent claims 8, 16 and 25 are principally the same as those presented for claim 1. (Br. 13-14). These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above and in the Answer. Appellant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims are not persuasive for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. The invention of Beals, like the claimed invention, is directed to coatings suitable for forming the refractory metal core systems that are suitable for the fabrication of gas turbine engine components. (See Beals [0001]-[0002]). A person of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation would have recognized the suitable and optimal dimensions of the metallic core, cooling passages and coating layers. Appellants have not established that the parameters identified in the dependent claims achieve unexpected results, thereby rebutting any prima facie case of obviousness established by the Examiner. Appellant’s Reply Brief submitted September 28, 2009 has not been considered. The Reply Brief was submitted with new evidence without an explanation as to why this evidence was not submitted prior to the appeal. Appeal 2010-000699 Application 11/285,564 5 See 37 CFR § 41.37(i). Appellant’s arguments are also premised on the newly presented evidence.2 For the foregoing reasons and those presented in the Answer, the rejection of claims number 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Beals and Grensing is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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)(1)(v). AFFIRMED kmm BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. (P&W) 900 CHAPEL STREET SUITE 1201 NEW HAVEN, CT 06510-2802 2 To the extent that the Reply Brief contains arguments not premised upon the new evidence, these arguments appear to be principally the same as those that were presented in the principal Brief.