GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

15076825 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
15/076,825 03/22/2016 Nicholas Edward ANTOLINO 278967-US-1/GEGRC-381 9819
161194 7590 10/01/2020
Dority & Manning, P.A. and Global Research Center
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
LAW, NGA LEUNG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NICHOLAS EDWARD ANTOLINO and
GLEN HAROLD KIRBY
____________

Appeal 2020-000189
Application 15/076,825
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 24, 25, and 32–34. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies General Electric Company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000189
Application 15/076,825

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to stacked up structures. Spec. ¶ 1. According
to the Specification, a stacked up structure may include first and second
environmental barrier coatings (EBCs). Id. ¶ 3. An interfacial layer may be
provided for improved bonding of the first and second EBCs. Id. Claim 32
is the sole independent claim on appeal and reads as follows:
32. A method comprising:
forming a first layer comprised of rare earth disilicate on
a surface wherein the forming of the first layer includes
applying a slurry to the surface;
forming a bond surface on the first layer wherein the
bond surface includes an interfacial material; and
forming a second layer comprised of rare earth disilicate
on the bond surface, wherein the forming of the second layer
includes using an air plasma spray (APS) process; and wherein
the bond surface is formed by spraying a slurry that includes
interfacial material onto the first layer so that a discontinuous
layer having voids is formed on the first layer.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 25, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lee3,2 Lee2,3 and Hazel.4
II. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Lee3, Lee2, Hazel, and Kirby.5

2 US 2010/0129673 A1, published May 27, 2010 (“Lee3”).
3 US 2010/0255260 A1, published October 7, 2010 (“Lee2”).
4 US 2006/0280953 A1, published December 14, 2006 (“Hazel”).
5 US 2011/0027484 A1, published February 3, 2011 (“Kirby”).
Appeal 2020-000189
Application 15/076,825

3
III. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Lee3, Lee2, Hazel, and Huang.6

OPINION
Rejection I: obviousness over Lee3, Lee2, and Hazel
With regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25, 32, and 33 in
Rejection I, Appellant argues only claim 32. See Appeal Br. 3–5. We
address Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 32 below. Claims 25 and 33
stand or fall with claim 32.
Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds
Lee3 discloses forming EBCs as well as thermal barrier coatings (TBCs)
using a process that includes forming a first oxide layer comprising rare
earth disilicate, a discontinuous reinforced layer, and a second oxide layer
comprising rare earth disilicate. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds Lee3
discloses forming the reinforced layer as a slurry, but does not teach
spraying the slurry. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner also finds Lee3 discloses
forming the second oxide layer by plasma spraying, but does not specify air
plasma spraying. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds Lee2 identifies slurry
spraying as a suitable technique for applying a slurry in an EBC, and finds
Hazel identifies air plasma spraying as a suitable plasma spray technique for
forming EBCs. Id.
Appellant’s arguments focus on Lee2 and Hazel. In fact, Appellant
does not address Lee3—the principal reference on which the Examiner bases
the rejection of claim 32. Particularly, Appellant argues Lee2 discloses

6 US 2012/0171039 A1, published July 5, 2012 (“Huang”).
Appeal 2020-000189
Application 15/076,825

4
forming a first disilicate coating by plasma spray, whereas claim 32 requires
forming such coating by applying a slurry. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant further
argues Lee2 teaches depositing a second disilicate coating from a slurry,
whereas claim 32 requires an air plasma spray process. Id. Appellant
additionally argues that, although Lee2 discloses depositing a first coating
from a slurry and a second coating by plasma spraying, Appellant contends
those disclosures in Lee2 concern an embodiment in which rare earth
disilicates are not included. Id. at 4. Appellant also argues Lee2 does not
disclose an intermediate layer comprising interfacial material. Id. With
regard to Hazel, Appellant argues Hazel does not disclose rare earth
disilicate layers, and does not disclose forming a discontinuous second layer.
Id. at 5.
“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test
[for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)). Here, all of the
features Appellant contends are missing from Lee2 and Hazel are features
the Examiner finds are taught in the principal reference, Lee3. For example,
the Examiner finds Lee3 teaches forming a first disilicate coating by
applying a slurry, and forming a second disilicate coating by plasma
spraying. Final Act. 4. See Lee3 ¶ 53 (stating the first and second oxide
Appeal 2020-000189
Application 15/076,825

5
layers can be formed from a slurry or by plasma spraying); see also id. ¶ 5
(identifying air plasma spraying as a known technique for applying TBCs).7
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments regarding Lee2 and
Hazel are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 32 based on the combined teachings of Lee3, Lee2, and Hazel.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25, 32, and 33.

Rejections II and III
Appellant does not separately argue either Rejection II or Rejection
III. As such, Appellant does not identify reversible error. Accordingly, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 34.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 24, 25, and 32–34 is
affirmed.

7 Because Lee3 teaches air plasma spraying, the Examiner’s additional
reliance on Hazel for that teaching is cumulative.
Appeal 2020-000189
Application 15/076,825

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25, 32, 33 103 Lee3, Lee2, Hazel 25, 32, 33
24 103 Lee3, Lee2, Hazel 24
34 103 Lee3, Lee2, Hazel 34
Overall
outcome
24, 25, 32–
34

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED