Steven W. Burd et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

14764842 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 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.
14/764,842 07/30/2015 Steven W. Burd 1213-24730WOUS 1372
11943 7590 01/22/2020
Getz Balich LLC
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 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):
shenry@getzbalich.com
uspto@getzbalich.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN W. BURD and RICKEY P. MERCER
Appeal 2019-002543
Application 14/764,842
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, 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 and 14–18. See Final Act. 3, 8,
10, 12, 13, 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “United Technologies
Corp.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002543
Application 14/764,842
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a coating process for a gas turbine engine
component with cooling holes. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of coating a component having a multiple of
cooling holes comprising:
removing at least a portion of a prior coating from the
component;
mapping a location of each of the multiple of cooling holes
to generate a map of cooling holes;
subsequent to said mapping, applying a coat to the
component;
subsequent to applying the coat to the component,
adjusting the map of cooling holes using said mapping to account
for said coat to generate, by a computing device that includes an
algorithm, an adjusted map of cooling holes, where the using of
said mapping by the algorithm to generate the adjusted map of
cooling holes is based on a thickness of the coat and deformation
from applying the coat; and
drilling the multiple of cooling holes in response to the
adjusted map of cooling holes.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 13).
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Liebert
Robertson
Bruce
US 4,402,992
US 5,422,167
US 6,210,488 B1
Sept. 6, 1983
June 6, 1995
Apr. 3, 2001
Ducotey
Bolms
Melzer-Jokisch
US 2003/0037436 A1
US 2009/0220349 A1
US 2012/0179285 A1
Feb. 27, 2003
Sept. 3, 2009
July 12, 2012

Appeal 2019-002543
Application 14/764,842
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Melzer-Jokisch. Final Act. 3.
Claims 2–5, 15, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Melzer-Jokisch and Bolms. Final Act. 8.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Melzer-Jokisch and Ducotey. Final Act. 10.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Melzer-Jokisch, Ducotey, and Bruce. Final Act. 12.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Melzer-Jokisch and Liebert. Final Act. 13.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Melzer-Jokisch and Robertson. Final Act. 14.
OPINION
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Melzer-Jokisch describes a
method with all the recited steps. Final Act. 3. More specifically, the
Examiner finds that Figure 3 of Melzer-Jokisch discloses the recited
“removing,” “mapping,” “subsequent to said mapping, applying a coat,” and
“adjusting” steps by “stripping the blade to remove any coating from the
blade” at block 101, “a second geometry of the blade is digitalized” at block
106, “the blade is recoated with a protected coating” at block 113, and
“comparing the digitalized geometrical data of the second geometry of the
blade obtained at block 106 to stored reference geometry data, to identify the
positions at which the cooling holes (or any other such design opening) need
to be re-opened” at block 114. Melzer-Jokisch ¶¶ 36, 39, 44; Final Act. 3–4.
Appeal 2019-002543
Application 14/764,842
4
Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the Examiner reversibly
erred in finding that Melzer-Jokisch describes a method step of “subsequent
to said mapping, applying a coat to the component” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues that Melzer-Jokisch describes a method in which the
mapping of a component occurs after applying the coating. Appeal Br. 7.
The record does not support Appellant’s argument. As the Examiner finds,
Melzer-Jokisch ¶ 39 describes a process step where “at block 106, in order
to capture the geometry of the blade subsequent to the milling operation, a
second geometry of the blade is digitalized . . . .” See Final Act. 3 (citing
Melzer-Jokisch ¶ 39). Appellant does not address the teaching of
Melzer-Jokisch ¶ 39 and does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
findings thereof. See Appeal Br. 7–8 (basing arguments solely on
Melzer-Jokisch ¶¶ 44, 45). Following the discussion of block 106, Melzer-
Jokisch undisputedly describes that “the blade is re-coated” at block 113
(Melzer-Jokisch ¶ 44), thereby meeting the recited step of “subsequent to
said mapping, applying a coat to the component.”
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s finding with regard to
block 106, but argues that equating the digitalization at block 106 as the
recited “mapping” step “would render the operations of block 114 of
Melzer-Jokisch unnecessary/superfluous.” Appeal Br. 8. This argument does
not persuade us to ignore the disclosure of Melzer-Jokisch and does not
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s fact findings in support of the
rejection.
The rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Appellant does not argue
separately the rejection of claim 14 and it is also sustained. Appeal Br. 9
(arguing only that the reference does not disclose the limitations “for at least
Appeal 2019-002543
Application 14/764,842
5
similar reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1”); see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites “wherein the
mapping is performed by at least two techniques selected from the group
consisting of: interferometry, optical scanning, laser scanning, digital vision,
and part probing.”
The Examiner finds that Melzer-Jokisch ¶ 47 discloses the additional
limitations. Final Act. 7–8. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner
additionally cites Melzer-Jokisch ¶ 37 for the disclosure of “part probing.”
Ans. 20.
Appellant argues, on the other hand, that Melzer-Jokisch does not
disclose the recited “part probing” and does not disclose that “the mapping is
performed by at least two techniques” as recited in claim 17. Appeal Br. 9.
We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Contrary to the Examiner’s
finding, Melzer-Jokisch ¶ 37 only provides a definition of “digitalizing”
without specifically disclosing any particular technique, much less the “part
probing” recited in claim 17. Melzer-Jokisch ¶ 47 discloses certain “imaging
means” such as “a digital camera” and “scanning means” such as “laser
triangulation or tomographic techniques” but does not disclose every
limitation of claim 17 including “part probing,” Moreover, although
Melzer-Jokisch describes certain mapping techniques, the record before us
does not show that “at least two” of such techniques are performed for the
“mapping” step as recited in claim 17. See Melzer-Jokisch ¶¶ 37, 47. We
reverse the rejection of claim 17 as a result.
Appeal 2019-002543
Application 14/764,842
6
Remaining Claims
Appellant does not argue separately for the rejections of the remaining
claims, namely, the obviousness rejections of claims 2–10, 15, 16, and 18.
Appeal Br. 10–11. These rejections are sustained. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and 14 under § 102 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under § 102 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–10, 15, 16, and 18 under § 103
are affirmed.

More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 14, 17 102(b) Melzer-Jokisch 1, 14 17
2–5, 15, 16 103(a) Melzer-Jokisch, Bolms 2–5, 15, 16
6, 7 103(a) Melzer-Jokisch,
Ducotey
6, 7
8, 9 103(a) Melzer-Jokisch,
Ducotey, Bruce
8, 9
10 103(a) Melzer-Jokisch, Liebert 10
18 103(a) Melzer-Jokisch,
Robertson
18
Overall
Outcome:
1–10, 14–
16, 18
17

Appeal 2019-002543
Application 14/764,842
7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART