SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 10, 2020

2019006898 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 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.
14/251,691 04/14/2014 Kazim Ozbaysal 2013P24727US 6598
28524 7590 11/10/2020
SIEMENS CORPORATION
IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244
3850 Quadrangle Blvd
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
YANG, JIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2020 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KAZIM OZBAYSAL

Appeal 2019-006898
Application 14/251,691
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 2, 7, 15, and 16.2 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—i.e., “SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.” (Application Data
Sheet filed April 14, 2014 at 4), which is also identified as the real party in
interest (Appeal Brief filed April 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1).
2 See Appeal Br. 4–8; Reply Brief filed September 23, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) at
2–4; Final Office Action entered December 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 3–6
(referring to Non-Final Office Action entered July 31, 2013 (“Non-Final
Act.”) at 5–10); Examiner’s Answer entered August 1, 2019 (“Ans.”) at 3–6.
Appeal 2019-006898
Application 14/251,691

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for repairing a
superalloy component, such as a turbine engine blade, by brazing
(Specification filed April 14, 2014 (“Spec.”) at 3, l. 13–4, l. 2). According
to the Specification, “[t]he invention combines the porosity reducing
function of a hot isostatic pressing operation with the strength restoring
function of a solution heat treatment into a single isostatic solution treatment
process” (id. at 3, ll. 15–17). The Specification explains:
While the prior art process of subjecting a brazed superalloy
component to a HIP process followed by a solution treatment
might typically yield only 10% acceptable parts due to excessive
porosity, and while the prior art process of eliminating the
solution treatment might typically yield from 30-50% acceptable
parts but with a strength penalty in the superalloy material, the
present invention has demonstrated greater than 80% acceptable
parts with no superalloy material strength penalty.
(Id. at 5, ll. 4–9).
Representative claims 1 and 15, which are the only independent
claims on appeal, are reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, as follows:
1. A method of repairing a gas turbine blade comprising:
applying a boron free braze material to a superalloy
component at a brazing temperature of 1,100 - 1,250 °C.
in vacuum;
performing a solution heat treatment and a hot
isostatic pressing process simultaneously on the
component at below the brazing temperature for 2 - 4
hours at a pressure of 10 - 25 ksi;
fast cooling the component at a minimum of 25
°C/min to ambient while maintaining the pressure of 10 -
25 ksi; and
releasing the pressure to ambient.
Appeal 2019-006898
Application 14/251,691

3
15. In a method of applying braze material to a superalloy
material, an improvement comprising:
performing a solution heat treatment and a hot
isostatic pressing process simultaneously at a pressure of
10-25 ksi; then
rapidly cooling at a minimum of 25 °C/min to
ambient temperature while maintaining the pressure of 10-
25 ksi; and
returning the pressure to ambient pressure after
returning to ambient temperature.
(Appeal Br. 10, 11 (emphases added)).
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
A. Claim 15 as unpatentable over Yoshioka et al.3 (“Yoshioka”;
referred to as “EP’074” by the Examiner) in view of Kenton
(referred to as “US’256” by the Examiner);4
B. Claim 16 as unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Kenton, and
further in view of Kulkarni et al.5 (“Kulkarni”; referred to as
“US’015” by the Examiner);
C. Claims 1 and 7 as unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of
Kenton, and further in view of Ito et al.6 (“Ito”; referred to as
“US’881” by the Examiner); and
D. Claim 2 as unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Kenton and
Ito, and further in view of Kulkarni.

3 EP 1 605 074 A1, published December 14, 2005.
4 US 4,302,256, issued November 24, 1981.
5 US 9,102,015 B2, issued August 11, 2015.
6 US 9,149,881 B2, issued October 6, 2015.
Appeal 2019-006898
Application 14/251,691

4
(Ans. 3–6; Final Act. 3–6; Non-Final Act. 5–10).7
III. DISCUSSION
The Examiner determines that all the limitations recited in claim 15
are taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Yoshioka and Kenton
(Non-Final Act. 5–6). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Yoshioka
teaches a method having all the steps recited in claim 15, including applying
a high pressure solution heat treatment and a hot isotactic pressing process at
elevated pressures that overlap with the range of pressures recited in the
claim (id. at 5). The Examiner states that the overlap creates a prima facie
case of obviousness and that, “[t]herefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art . . . to optimize pressure as disclosed by
[Yoshioka] because [Yoshioka] teaches the same process of brazing a super-
alloy material throughout the whole disclosed ranges” (id. at 5–6). The
Examiner relies on Kenton as evidence to support the notion that
maintaining pressure during cooling is well-known in the art (id. at 6).
The Appellant contends, inter alia, that the relied-upon portions of
Yoshioka do not teach or suggest performing solution heat treatment and
HIP process simultaneously as required by the claims (Appeal Br. 6).
According to the Appellant, “[a] hot isostatic press operation includes the
treatment of a component with high temperature and high gas pressure in all
directions (isostatic)[,] which leads to the collapse of internal porosity to a

7 The Examiner states that a rejection under the judicially-created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting of claim 1, 2, 7, 15, and 16 as
unpatentable over claims 21–27 of Application 14/768,136 (now claims 1–6
of US 9,782,862 B2 issued October 10, 2017) in view of Yoshioka and
Kenton has been withdrawn in view of a Terminal Disclaimer filed April 18,
2019 (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2019-006898
Application 14/251,691

5
combination of plastic deformation and creep” (id. (citing Spec. 1, l. 29–2, l.
18)).
We agree with the Appellant. Our reasons follow.
Yoshioka describes a thermal recovery treatment process for a
service-degraded component of a gas turbine, in which a recovery heat
treatment is conducted at elevated pressure, a solution heat treatment is
conducted at reduced pressure or inert gas atmosphere after the recovery
heat treatment, and an aging heat treatment is processed under reduced
pressure or an inert gas atmosphere after the recovery heat treatment
(Yoshioka Abstract; ¶ 30). Yoshioka teaches that the repair may be done by
any process known in the art, including vacuum brazing (id. ¶ 28). Although
Yoshioka mentions hot isotactic pressing (HIP), that disclosure is in the
context of “a prior-heated HIP-processed alloy” or another prior art
process—not in the context of performing a solution heat treatment and an
HIP process simultaneously (id. ¶¶ 58–59, 66). Therefore, we conclude that
the Examiner’s contrary finding constitutes reversible error (Ans. 6).
Because this flaw in the Examiner’s findings applies equally to claim
1, we do not sustain any of the four rejections.

Appeal 2019-006898
Application 14/251,691

6
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15 103 Yoshioka, Kenton 15
16 103 Yoshioka, Kenton, Kulkarni 16
1, 7 103 Yoshioka, Kenton, Ito 1, 7
2 103 Yoshioka, Kenton, Ito,
Kulkarni
2
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 7, 15, 16

REVERSED