Ex Parte White

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2011

11280711 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2011)

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.
11/280,711 11/16/2005 Dawn White DWH-12402/29 2139
25006 7590 03/30/2011
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021
EXAMINER
ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DAWN WHITE
________________

Appeal 2010-003185
Application 11/280,711
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003185
Application 11/280,711

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.

Appellant claims a method of depositing aluminum or an alloy thereof
comprising the steps of solution heat treating an aluminum-based feedstock
and ultrasonically consolidating the feedstock to a substrate (claim 1).
Representative claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as
follows:
1. A method depositing aluminum or an alloy thereof,
comprising the steps of:
solution heat treating an aluminum-based feedstock; and
ultrasonically consolidating the feedstock to a substrate.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Tack et al. US 5,620,652 Apr. 15, 1997
White US 6,519,500 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
I. N. A. Oguocha & S. Yannacopoulos, Natural Ageing Behaviour of Cast
Alumina Particle-Reinforced 2618 Aluminum Alloy, 31 J. MATERIALS SCI.
3145 (1996).
G. D. Janaki Ram et al., Microstructural Refinement Through Inoculation of
Type 7020 Al-Zn-Mg Alloy Welds and its Effect on Hot Cracking and Tensile
Properties, 142 J. MATERIALS PROCESSING TECH. 174 (2003).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects:
claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 as unpatentable over Tack;
Appeal 2010-003185
Application 11/280,711

3
claim 5 as unpatentable over Tack in view of White;
claims 6 and 9 as unpatentable over Tack in view of Oguocha; and
claim 10 as unpatentable over Tack in view of Ram.

These rejections will be sustained for the reasons expressed in the
Answer and below.

The § 103 Rejection based on Tack alone

In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to provide Tack's method of treating an aluminum-based feedstock
with the combined steps of solution heat treating the feedstock and
ultrasonically consolidating the feedstock to a substrate as required by
claim 1 (Ans. 3-4).
Appellant argues that "there is no disclosure in Tack of solution heat
treating an aluminum-based feedstock, and ultrasonically consolidating that
feedstock to a substrate" (App. Br. 3). In this regard, Appellant concedes
that Tack discloses solution heat treating and ultrasonically welding
methodologies but argues that "nowhere are the two methodologies
combined into a single 'embodiment,' whether preferred or non-preferred"
(Reply Br. 1).
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive for the reasons given by the
Examiner (Ans. 8-9). We emphasize the Examiner's citation of Tack's
Example 2 (id.), wherein Tack expressly discloses subjecting an aluminum-
based feedstock to solution heat treating followed by an unspecified welding
technique. It is undisputed that ultrasonic welding is explicitly taught to be
Appeal 2010-003185
Application 11/280,711

4
an acceptable technique for welding the aluminum-based alloys of Tack (col.
5, ll. 14-27). These findings of fact support the Examiner's conclusion that it
would have been obvious to solution heat treat an aluminum-based feedstock
of Tack and ultrasonically weld (i.e., consolidate) the feedstock to a
substrate.
Appellant also argues that Tack contains no teaching or suggestion of
the dependent claim 3 limitation "the feedstock is solution heat treated off
line" (App. Br. 3-4). Appellant explains that "'off line' means before the
ultrasonic consolidation step" (id. at 3).
Appellant's above explanation clearly establishes that the heat treating
step in previously discussed Example 2 of Tack satisfies the "off line"
requirement of claim 3 since this heat treating step occurs before the welding
(i.e., consolidation) step. It follows that the argument under consideration
lacks persuasive merit.
Finally, Appellant argues that Tack contains no teaching or suggestion
of the dependent claim 4 step "wherein the feedstock is heat-treated on-line
by passing it through a temperature-and/or atmosphere-controlled chamber
prior to ultrasonic consolidation" (App. Br. 4).
This argument is unconvincing. In Example 2, Tack expressly
discloses aging (i.e., heat treating) the feedstock at 180°C prior to the
subsequently performed welding step. Appellant does not explain with any
reasonable specificity why this aging step would not have suggested the heat
treating step required by claim 4.
No other claims in this rejection have been separately argued by
Appellant. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7,
8, 11, and 12 as unpatentable over Tack.
Appeal 2010-003185
Application 11/280,711

5

The § 103 Rejection based on Tack and White

The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to support
the feedstock of Tack, as required by claim 5, in the manner and for the
reasons taught by White (Ans. 5).
Appellant argues that, "[r]egardless of the teachings of White, Tack
has no need for any support to minimize slumping because Tack is not
concerned with such manufacturing processes" (App. Br. 4).
This argument is not convincing. Tack, White, and Appellant are all
concerned with processes for manufacturing aerospace structures with
aluminum-based feedstock (Tack abstract; White col. 12, ll. 51-52;
Appellant's Specification abstract). This commonality of interest supports
the Examiner's proposed combination of Tack and White.
We sustain, therefore, the § 103 rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable
over Tack and White.

The § 103 Rejection based on Tack and Oguocha

The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
the method of Tack with T4 feedstock, as required by claim 6, and with the
step of aging at room temperature, as required by claim 9, in view of
Oguocha (Ans. 6).
Appellant contests this rejection on the grounds that "[t]o modify the
alloys of Tack might defeat Tack's intended purposes, thereby undermining
obviousness" (App. Br. para. bridging 4-5; italics added).
Appeal 2010-003185
Application 11/280,711

6
On this record, Appellant has provided no support for the proposition
that the Examiner's combination of Tack and Oguocha would somehow
"defeat Tack's intended purposes" (id.). For this reason alone, the argument
under review is without convincing merit.
It follows that we also sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims
6 and 9 as unpatentable over Tack and Oguocha.

The § 103 Rejection based on Tack and Ram

The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
the method of Tack with a post-weld aging (i.e., heat treating) step in order
to restore the original properties of Tack's aluminum-based alloys, as taught
by Ram (Ans. 7).
Appellant argues that "[t]here seems to be no motivation whatsoever"
for combining Tack and Ram in the manner proposed by the Examiner (App.
Br. 5). However, we agree with the Examiner that an artisan would have
been motivated to combine these reference teachings in order to restore the
properties of Tack's aluminum-based alloys in accordance with the
disclosure of Ram (Ans. 7, 12).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 10 as
unpatentable over Tack and Ram.

Conclusion

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-003185
Application 11/280,711

7
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).

AFFIRMED

bar