Ex Parte van Wortel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 2, 2010

10495138 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 2, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHANNES CORNELIS VAN WORTEL
____________

Appeal 2009-008221
Application 10/495,138
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: June 2, 2010
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-4, 8, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2009-008221
Application 10/495,138

2
Appellant claims a method for improving the resistance of a
component to catalytic carbonization and coking comprising the step of
providing the component with a layer applied by welding, which layer
comprises Ni, Cr and a mixture of Al and Si (claim 1). Appellant also
claims a component having such a welded layer (claim 22).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for improving the resistance of a
component manufactured from heat-resistant metal to
(catalytic) carbonization and coking,
comprising the step of:
providing the component on at least one side with
a layer applied by welding, which layer comprises Ni, Cr and
a third component, the third component being a mixture of A1
and Si, and 0-25 wt.% of Fe.
The Examiner rejects all appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mendez Acevedo (US Patent No. 6,475,647 B1,
Issued Nov. 5, 2002) in view of Wynns (US Patent No. 6,537,388 B1, Issued
Mar. 25, 2003).
The Examiner finds that Mendez Acevedo discloses a method for
improving the resistance of a component to catalytic carbonization and
coking which comprises providing the component with a layer applied by
welding which comprises Ni, Cr, and Al (Ans. 3). The Examiner
acknowledges that Mendez Acevedo’s layer does not include Si but finds
that Wynns discloses a similar method in which the layer comprises Cr, Al,
and Si (id. at para. bridging 3-4). Based on these findings, the Examiner
reaches the following conclusion of obviousness:
Appeal 2009-008221
Application 10/495,138

3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to have followed the teachings of
Wynns and modified the method of Mendez Acevedo such as
by insuring that silicon was included along with chromium and
aluminum in the coating alloy. One would have been motivated
to add a phase stabilizing and highly carburization resistant
element such as silicon in order to form a long lasting coating
which could tolerate elevated temperatures during hydrocarbon
processing.
(Id. at 4).

Appellant states that “the claims stand or fall together” (App. Br. 7).
We select claim 1 to represent the rejected claims.
Appellant argues that Wynns would not have suggested providing
Mendez Acevedo’s layer-to-be-welded with silicon because “there is no
advantage disclosed [in Wynns] for using silicon together with aluminum in
coating processes other than in vapor deposition coating” (App. Br. 9).
Appellant recognizes that Wynns’ coatings or layers may be formed by
welding processes in addition to the preferred vapor deposition methods (id.
at 10; Wynns col. 6, ll. 14-17). According to Appellant, however, a welding
process would be used only for applying a layer or coating of aluminum
without silicon (App. Br. 10). As apparent support for this contention,
Appellant refers to column 10, lines 3-14, of Wynns as disclosing that an
outer aluminum enrichment layer provides an immediate line of protection
against carburization and catalytic coke formation by a dense and adherent
aluminum oxide film (id. at para. bridging 10-11). In this regard, Appellant
contends that Wynns “does not disclose the silicon in the formed outer
aluminum layer as having any advantageous effect” (id. at 11).
Appellant’s position is not well taken. In the Wynns disclosure
referenced by Appellant, Wynns expressly teaches that “silicon supports and
Appeal 2009-008221
Application 10/495,138

4
strengthens the aluminum oxide surface layer and helps to reject carbon as it
attempts to migrate into the substrate alloy, thus minimizing chromium
depletion through carbide formation” (col. 10, ll. 10-14). Therefore,
contrary to Appellant’s above quoted contention, Wynns teaches an
advantageous effect when using silicon in combination with aluminum as
protection against carburization and catalytic coke formation. This teaching
of Wynns would have suggested adding silicon to Mendez Acevedo’s Ni,
Cr, and Al weld layer in order to thereby achieve the advantageous effect
described by Wynns.
In this latter regard, Appellant argues that Wynns “does not prompt
one of skilled to use silicon in the welding processes, as the advantageous
effect of silicon in the thin layers formed by CVD and/or PVD would not be
present in much thicker layers formed by welding” (App. Br. 11). However,
Appellant has proffered no evidence that the advantageous effect of silicon
as taught by Wynns would not be present in layers formed by welding.
Moreover, Appellant erroneously characterizes Wynns’ CVD/ PVD
diffusion layers as thin and Mendez Acevedo’s weld layers as thick. In fact,
the thicknesses of these respective layers overlap. See Wynns’ teaching of
diffusion thicknesses ranges from 0.0508 mm to 0.762 mm (col. 6, ll. 5-7,
sent. bridging cols. 6-7) in comparison with Mendez Acevedo’s teaching of
a layer or coating thickness between about 0.02 and 6 mm (col. 5, ll. 8-10).
Under these circumstances, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
For the above stated reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of all appealed claims as being unpatentable over Mendez Acevedo
in view of Wynns.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-008221
Application 10/495,138

5
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

YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 MADISON STREET
SUITE 500
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314