Ex Parte Skoog et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 6, 2007

10726357 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 6, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW JAY SKOOG,
JANE ANN MURPHY and
TIMOTHY RAY LATTIRE
____________

Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: July 6, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-22. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method of applying a heat-rejection coating, comprising the
steps of:

Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357

supplying a component of a gas turbine engine having an outer
ceramic surface;

providing a reflective-coating mixture, wherein the reflective-coating
mixture comprises a metallic pigment and an evaporable carrier;

applying the mixture to the outer ceramic surface by a method
selected from the group consisting of air-assisted spraying, airless spraying,
brushing, and decal transfer; and

firing the component having the reflective-coating mixture thereon to
form a reflective coating on the ceramic component.

The Examiner relies upon by the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Houshiyun JP 60081892 A May 9, 1985
Klabunde US 4,877,647 Oct. 31, 1989
Demaray US 4,676,994 Jun. 30, 1994
Vakil US 5,407,705 Apr. 18, 1995
Nagaraj US 5,545,437 Aug. 13, 1996
Tecle US 5,922,403 Jul. 13, 1999
Skoog US 6,210,791 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
Rigney US 6,455,167 B1 Sep. 24, 2002
Skoog US 6,720,034 B2 Apr. 13, 2004

Eppler, Richard A., "Ceramic Coatings" Engineered Materials Handbook, 4,
ASM International, 953-956, 1991.

Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 22, 4th Ed., John
Wiley & Sons, 670-690.

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method of applying a
heat-rejection coating on an outer ceramic surface of a component of a gas
turbine engine. The reflective-coating comprises a mixture of a metallic
pigment and evaporable carrier, and is applied to the ceramic surface by one
2
Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357

of air-assisted spraying, airless spraying, brushing, and decal transfer. The
coated surface is subjected to firing after the application of the reflective-
coating mixture.
Appealed claims 1-5 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 2, 4-6, and 7 of
US Patent No. 6,720,034 to Skoog; claims 1-9 and 16-18 also stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 6,720,034 in view of Rigney. In addition,
the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 1-6, and 8 over Nagaraj in view of Klabunde, Kirk-Othmer
and Rigney;
(b) claim 7 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Vakil;
(c) claim 9 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Eppler;
(d) claim 10 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Tecle;
(e) claims 11-13 over the stated combination of references further in
view of Houshiyun;
(f) claims 14 and 15 over the stated combination of references further
in view of Skoog ‘791; and,
(g) claims 16-22 over the stated combination of references further in
view of Demaray.
With respect to the double patenting rejections and the § 103 rejection
of claims 1-6 and 8, Appellants do not set forth an argument that is
3
Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357

reasonably specific to any particular claim. Accordingly, the claims subject
to these rejections stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner's
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his cogent and
thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants. Accordingly,
we will adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the
rejections of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the Examiner's double patenting rejections which
are based on the patent to Skoog’034. Skoog, like Appellants, claims a
method of applying a heat-rejection coating to the outer surface of a
component of a gas turbine engine wherein the heat-rejection coating
comprises a mixture of a metallic pigment and an evaporable carrier. Skoog
also claims applying the heat-rejection coating by one of the cited techniques
and firing the component of the engine after application of the reflective-
coating mixture. Appellants contend that Skoog "is directed to a method of
applying a heat rejection coating to a metallic component of a gas turbine
engine [whereas] [i]n contrast, the present invention is directed to applying
the heat rejection coating to a ceramic component" (Br. 7, second para.).
However, as pointed out by the Examiner, claim 7 of Skoog specifically
recites applying a ceramic barrier coating onto the component of the engine
"before the step of applying the reflective-coating mixture" and then
"applying the reflective-coating mixture after the ceramic barrier coating
applied to the component."
4
Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357

Consequently, we find no patentable distinction between the claimed
application of a reflective-coating mixture to the outer ceramic surface of an
engine component and Skoog's claim to applying the same reflective-coating
mixture to a ceramic barrier coating on the engine component. Manifestly,
Skoog's claimed engine component having a ceramic coating thereon meets
Appellants' claim requirement of a component of a gas turbine engine
having an outer ceramic surface. We totally reject Appellants' argument that
claim 7 of Skoog, which depends on claim 1, requires supplying a metallic
component rather than the presently claimed "supplying a component of a
gas turbine engine having an outer ceramic surface." We agree with the
Examiner that once the method of Skoog's claim 7 applies a ceramic coating
onto the engine component, an engine component having an outer ceramic
surface is supplied. Although Rigney provides additional evidence that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit the
heat-reflective coating of Skoog onto an outer ceramic surface of an engine
component, we hardly find Rigney necessary for supporting the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness.
We now turn to the § 103 rejections. Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner's factual determination that Nagaraj teaches a method of applying
a heat-reflective coating "on a nickel-based superalloy component of a gas
turbine engine by applying a ceramic thermal barrier coating onto the
substrate by plasma spraying and then applying the heat reflecting layer of
gold or platinum on the thermal barrier coating (Col. 3, line 26-Col. 4, line
24)" (Answer 6, last para.). As acknowledged by the Examiner, while
Nagaraj "teaches that the heat-reflecting layer can be applied by any
5
Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357

conventional deposition technique (Col. 3, lines 49-57)" (id.), the reference
does not specifically teach any of the presently claimed application
techniques. However, Klabunde teaches the method of forming a reflective
layer on a substrate by spraying a dispersion of metal particles, such as gold
or platinum, and a solvent carrier onto the substrate followed by firing (see
col. 3, lines 35-65 and col. 6, lines 30-54). Hence, based on the combined
teachings of Nagaraj and Klabunde alone, we find that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Appellants' air-assisted
spraying or airless spraying in the application of Nagaraj's heat-reflective
coating.
While the Examiner acknowledges that Klabunde does not teach an
air-assisted spraying technique, claim 1 on appeal does not require such
since airless spraying is also recited. In any event, Kirk-Othmer firmly
establishes the obviousness of employing air-assisted spraying as well in
Nagaraj/s application of the heat-reflective coating. Also, while Nagaraj
prefers applying the heat-reflective coating on a nickel-based superalloy, we
agree with the Examiner that Rigney evidences the obviousness of utilizing a
ceramic thermal barrier coating to insulate the substrate from high
temperature.
Appellants acknowledge that "Nagaraj teaches that his mixtures 'can
be readily deposited' (col. 3, line 60) and mentions 'conventional deposition
techniques' (col. 3, line 56)," but Appellants maintain that the reference "has
no teaching of a method for applying a reflective-coating mixture" (Br. 12,
last para.). However, Appellants fail to explain why any of the application
methods recited in claim 1 on appeal would not have been considered by one
6
Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357

of ordinary skill in the art as one of the conventional deposition technique
taught by Nagaraj.
We do not understand Appellants' argument that "Nagaraj does not
teach or suggest providing a reflective-coating" (Br. 13, second para.). The
reference expressly discloses that "the heat shield is formed as a reflective
coating 16 which forms a reflective surface 18 on the insert 10, as shown in
FIG. 1" (col. 3, lines 42-44). As for Appellants' argument that "the present
invention recites only applying a reflective coating mixture, not both a
reflective coating mixture and thermal barrier coating" (id.), the Examiner
properly notes that the "comprising" language of the appealed claims
embraces the application of both such coatings.
Appellants also maintain that the spraying techniques cited in Kirk-
Othmer "with respect to atomizers appears directed to the internal workings
of the gas turbine, i.e., the injection of fuel inside the engine for combustion,
not applying a coating to the surface of a gas turbine engine" (Br. 14, third
para.). However, we concur with the Examiner that Kirk-Othmer,
considered as a whole, "is directed to known and conventional spraying
techniques and discloses, on page 688 in Table 2, air-atomizing spray is a
known method of spraying coatings" (Answer 15, last para.). We note that
Appellants have apprised us of no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered it unobvious to apply a heat-reflective coating by one
of the known, claimed application techniques.
Appellants also state that they do not "know whether palladium,
platinum, and/or gold colloidal metal dispersions as taught by Klabunde will
yield a 'reflective-coating mixture' as claimed" (Br. 16, first para.).
7
Appeal 2007-2158
Application 10/726,357

However, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have the reasonable expectation that a dispersion of metal particles,
such as gold and platinum, would result in a reflective coating, particularly
one having at least the non-specified degree of reflection that is within the
broad scope of the appealed claims.
As for the separate § 103 rejections of various dependent claims,
Appellants have not convinced us that the Examiner's rejections are in error.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims 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)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

cam

McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC
100 Pine Street
P. O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
8