Ex Parte Xu

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 8, 2019

15219965 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
15/219,965
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
07/26/2016 JinQuanXu
05/10/2019
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1213-26992AC 1096
EXAMINER
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205 YOON, KEVIN E
Farmington, CT 06032
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINQUAN XU1
Appeal2018-006579
Application 15/219 ,965
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JANEE.
INGLESE, 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 1-5 and 7-13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, United Technologies Corporation, which is
identified as the real party in interest (Br. 3).
Appeal2018-006579
Application 15/219 ,965
Appellant claims a method of manufacturing a replacement body for a
component (independent claim 1) and a method for repairing a component
(remaining independent claim 10), both of which include a step of adding
metal powder to a crucible.
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method of manufacturing a replacement body for a component,
compnsmg:
additively manufacturing a crucible for casting of the replacement
body;
adding a metal powder material to the crucible;
solidifying the metal material within the crucible to form a
directionally solidified microstructure within the replacement body; and
removing the crucible to reveal the directionally solidified
replacement body.
Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to
the dependent claims under rejection (see Br. 7-8). Therefore, these
dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims, of
which claim 1 is representative.
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1-5 and 7-9 on the ground
of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and
7-9 of copending Application 15/228, 543 (Final Action 3).
We summarily sustain this provisional rejection because Appellant
submits no arguments challenging its merits (see Br. 8).
2
Appeal2018-006579
Application 15/219 ,965
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner rejects claims 1-5 and 7-9 as
unpatentable over Kush (US 8,327,911 B2, iss. Dec. 11, 2012) in view of
Mironets (US 2013/0294901 Al, pub. Nov. 7, 2013) (Final Action 4-6) and
rejects claims 10-13 as unpatentable over Burke (US 6,508,000 B2, iss. Jan.
21, 2003) in view of Kush and Mironets (id. at 6-8).
There is no dispute that Kush teaches adding metal to a mold (i.e.,
crucible) as molten liquid ( col. 4, 1. 57-col. 5, 1. 7) rather than powder and
that Mironets teaches adding metal to a mold as powder (,-J,-J 45-46) rather
than liquid because "completely filling the mold cavity with a liquid metal is
difficult, especially when casting components having relatively complex
geometries" (,-J 3). In each of the prior art rejections, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Kush's liquid metal
addition by using metal powder rather than liquid metal in order to enhance
completely filling the mold cavity as taught by Mironets (Final Action 4-5,
7).
Appellant points out that Kush is directed to manufacturing an airfoil
having pores (Br. 7). Appellant argues "[ o ]ne skilled in the art would
appreciate that if the metal material was added to Kush in powder form, that
the powder would not necessarily infiltrate the porous areas" (id.).
Appellant argues "[a]ccordingly, one skilled in the art would not have
modified to Kush to incorporate the alleged teachings of Mironets as stated
3
Appeal2018-006579
Application 15/219 ,965
in the Office Action, as doing so would render the manufacturing in Kush
unsuitable for its intended purpose" (id.). 2
Appellant's argument lacks convincing merit. Appellant does not
support the argument with any evidence that an artisan would have believed
"the [metal] powder [ taught by Miro nets] would not necessarily infiltrate the
porous areas [ofKush's airfoil]" (Br. 7). Such evidence is necessary
because the argument is contrary to Mironets' teaching that metal powder
avoids the difficulty of completely filling a mold cavity with liquid metal as
pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 7). Moreover, the assertion that metal
powder would not "necessarily" infiltrate porous areas appears to conflict
with the established legal principle that "the expectation of success need
only be reasonable, not absolute." Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d
1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Finally, even assuming the infiltration of
porous areas requires the metal to be in liquid form, Appellant fails to
explain why such infiltration would not occur when the metal powder in the
mold cavity is melted in accordance with the teachings of Mironets (Fig. 3, ,-J
46).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of
claims 1-5 and 7-13.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
2 Appellant presents no other arguments challenging the Examiner's § 103
rejections (see id. at 7-8).
4
Appeal2018-006579
Application 15/219 ,965
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5