2021000102 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2021)

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 22, 2021

2021000102 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2021)

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. 15/560,687 09/22/2017 Frank Heinrichsdorf 03869.119404 6919 162436 7590 12/22/2021 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC 401 Congress Avenue Suite 1650 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER MORALES, RICARDO D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1738 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2021 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): dallen@sgbfirm.com patent@sgbfirm.com trosson@sgbfirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANK HEINRICHSDORF, RALPH REICHE, DANIEL REZNIK, and OLIVER STIER Appeal 2021-000102 Application 15/560,687 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, 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 1–10. We have jurisdiction 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2021-000102 Application 15/560,687 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for producing a component from a superalloy by way of a powder-bed-based additive manufacturing process. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for producing a component comprising a superalloy, the method comprising: preheating a powder bed comprising particles, wherein each particle comprise a core material coated by a ceramic layer, the core material including alloying constituents of the superalloy; wherein the powder bed is heated to a temperature below a melting point of the core material; and building up the component layer by layer in a powder bed by melting particles with an energy beam; wherein the superalloy is defined by a target alloy constituent composition for each respective alloying constituent. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1–4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Colin (US 2015/0321255) in view of Rickerby (US 5,645,893). II. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Colin and Rickerby in view of Burns (US 7,413,798). III. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Colin and Rickerby in view of Hagedorn (High Value Manufacturing: “Processing of nickel based superalloy MAR M-247 by means of High Temperature–Selective Laser Melting (HT–SLM)” and pages 291– 2942013). Appeal 2021-000102 Application 15/560,687 3 IV. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Colin, Rickerby in view of Genereux (US 4,769,087). OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .” (citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential))). We limit our discussion to independent claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal. The Examiner finds Colin teaches a method for producing a component with additive manufacturing with a coated powder nickel-based superalloy. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner finds Colin teaches the coated particles are melted or sintered in a powder bed with a selective laser sintering technique to form a multilayered structure part. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner finds Colin does not teach the nickel superalloy particles are coated with ceramic oxide. (Final Act. 3.) Addressing this difference, the Examiner relies on Rickerby as teaching a coated turbine blade wherein the core material or substrate comprises a nickel-based superalloy coated with a ceramic oxide. (Final Act. 3; Rickerby col. 5 ll. 5–10.) The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use a ceramic coating with a nickel superalloy in the method taught by Colin for the purpose of additively manufacturing a turbine part. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner’s motivation for combining Colin and Rickerby is not supported by the evidence of record. Rather, the Examiner appears to have Appeal 2021-000102 Application 15/560,687 4 relied on impermissible hindsight reasoning in determining it would have been obvious to use a ceramic coating on a nickel superalloy particle in the method taught by Colin. Rickerby, cited by the Examiner, describes a pre- existing component article 10 (Col. 5, Fig.1A) made of a superalloy that is coated with multilayer thermal barrier coating 11. Rickerby’s barrier coating 11 comprises a plasma-sprayed and diffusion heat-treated MCrAlT alloy bond coat layer 12 and is covered by a columnar layer of yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic 14. (Rickerby col. 4 ll. 47–56.) The Examiner has not adequately explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Rickerby’s superalloy article to suggest coating superalloy particles for use in Colin’s process. Thus, the Examiner has not provided a factual basis sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of the claimed invention. For the foregoing reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–10. The additional references cited in Rejections II–IV, in addition to Colin and Rickerby, do not address the deficiency in the rejection of the independent 1 discussed above. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 7, 10 103 Colin, Rickerby 1–4, 6, 7, 10 5 103 Colin, Rickerby, Burns 5 8 103 Colin, Rickerby, Hagedorn 8 9 103 Colin, Rickerby, Genereux 9 Appeal 2021-000102 Application 15/560,687 5 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1–10 REVERSED