Jon Conrad. SchaefferDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 1, 20202018005302 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/013,194 08/29/2013 Jon Conrad SCHAEFFER 263742/22113-0156 6025 13152 7590 05/01/2020 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 EXAMINER LAW, NGA LEUNG V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1717 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2020 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): patents@mcneeslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JON CONRAD SCHAEFFER ____________________ Appeal 2018-005302 Application 14/013,194 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before DONNA M. PRAISS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s July 12, 2017 decision finally rejecting claims 1–3 and 5–21 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Jon Conrad Schaeffer and General Electric Company as the real parties in interest (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2018-005302 Application 14/013,194 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure relates to a thermal spray coating method and thermal spray coated articles (Abstract). According to the Specification, components such as airfoils, cooling fins, and fingers in different equipment can be subject to high temperatures, and therefore must include cooling mechanisms, such as cooling channels, to reduce component temperatures (Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3). Many of these components are also thermally spray coated with a coating designed to handle high temperatures, so that clogging of the cooling channels during the spray coating process can be a problem (Spec. ¶ 4). The claimed method includes (1) providing a component with cooling channels on its surface, positioning a covering on the cooling channel, where the covering is a mesh or similar article having holes therein, and (2) thermal spraying a feedstock onto the component, where the covering prevents the feedstock from entering the cooling channels (Spec. ¶ 7). Details of the claimed invention are shown in representative claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. A thermal spray coating method, comprising: positioning a covering, having a plurality of openings through the covering, on a cooling channel of a component; and then thermal spraying a feedstock onto the covering; wherein the covering prohibits the feedstock from entering the cooling channel in the component and is not removed from the component; and wherein the plurality of openings have dimensions less than 50 μm. Appeal 2018-005302 Application 14/013,194 3 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over James2 in view of Bauer3 and Ligon.4 2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over James in view of Bauer and Ligon, and further in view of Brantley.5 3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over James in view of Bauer and Ligon, and further in view of Mendham.6 4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over James in view of Bauer and Ligon, and further in view of Durocher.7 5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over James in view of Bauer. DISCUSSION We decide this appeal based on a dispositive limitation common to each of independent claims 1, 17, and 20. Accordingly, we focus our analysis on the rejection of claim 1 over James in view of Bauer and Ligon. The Examiner’s findings underlying the rejection are set forth at pages 3–4 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds that James discloses each of the limitations of claim 1, except that James does not disclose that the covering for the cooling channel has a plurality of openings, or the size of such openings (Final Act. 3–4). The Examiner finds that Bauer teaches a method 2 James et al., US 2008/0298975 A1, published December 4, 2008. 3 Bauer, US 2005/0147764 A1, published July 7, 2005. 4 Ligon, US 2014/0199517 A1, published July 17, 2014. 5 Brantley et al., US 4,006,999, issued February 8, 1977. 6 Mendham, US 5,269,057, issued December 14, 1993. 7 Durocher et al., US 2013/0051979 A1, published February 28, 2013. Appeal 2018-005302 Application 14/013,194 4 of forming a coating by thermal spraying onto a substrate, where the substrate is a mesh substrate (Final Act. 3, citing Bauer Abstract, ¶ 33). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use a mesh as the cover used by James for a cooling channel because Bauer teaches that thermal spraying a mesh rather than a solid surface enables easing bonding of the coating material to the mesh because of the ability of the sprayed material to locally encapsulate portions of the mesh and bond to itself (Final Act. 3–4, citing Bauer ¶ 33). The Examiner relies on Ligon for teaching that the size of the openings in the mesh is a result effective variable and that, therefore, the claimed size of the openings in the mesh would have been obvious (Final Act. 4, citing Ligon ¶¶ 7, 20). Appellant’s principal argument is that a person of skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of James and Bauer because Bauer’s mesh has holes, and there is no teaching or disclosure in Bauer that feedstock does not pass through the holes during the thermal spraying process (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner correctly finds that Bauer discloses that thermally spray coating a mesh allows the coating material to locally encapsulate portions of the mesh and to bond for itself. However, as argued by Appellant, Bauer makes no disclosure about whether Bauer’s mesh allows some of the feedstock to pass through the mesh. Given that the function of the cover over the cooling channels in James’s component is to keep the cooling channels clear, we agree with Appellant that a person of skill in the art would not have looked to replace the non-perforated skin employed by James with a mesh. The Examiner also argues that a person of skill in the art would still have been motivated to use a mesh in place of the non-perforated cover of Appeal 2018-005302 Application 14/013,194 5 James because Bauer discloses that the mesh is encapsulated by the coating, providing good bonding to the coating, and that Ligon’s disclosure that the size of the mesh opening is a result effective variable, such that a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size of Bauer’s mesh to prevent the feedstock from leaking into the channel (Ans. 14). However, as noted by Appellant, Ligon specifically discloses adjusting the size of its mesh to keep solid particles from passing through (Ligon ¶ 20), and makes no mention of keeping the liquid feedstock, which is part of the thermal spray coat, from passing through the mesh. Thus, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence of record supports Appellant’s position that absent knowledge of Appellant’s invention, a person of skill in the art would not have been motivated to use Bauer’s mesh in James’s system, because nothing in the art of record suggests that a mesh would have been capable of preventing the liquid feedstock from entering the cooling channels during the thermal spray coating process. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1. Because independent claims 17 and 20 contain similar limitations regarding the exclusion of the feedstock from the cooling channels, we also reverse the rejections of those claims, as well as the rejections of the dependent claims. Appeal 2018-005302 Application 14/013,194 6 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–19, 21 103 James, Bauer, Ligon 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–19, 21 6 103 James, Bauer, Ligon, Brantley 6 9 103 James, Bauer, Ligon, Mendham 9 10 103 James, Bauer, Ligon, Durocher 10 20 103 James, Bauer 20 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation