The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2021

2021000838 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
14/058,804 10/21/2013 William Alan Thompson 038190/433063 1015
67141 7590 12/17/2021
Boeing and Alston & Bird, LLP
ONE SOUTH AT THE PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2021 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM ALAN THOMPSON,
MICHAEL H. WARE, NEHA BORKAR,
and MARC J. FRONING
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, GEORGE C. BEST, and DONNA M. PRAISS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–8, 11–14, 22, 23, and 25–32.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company.
(Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for coating a composite material.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of coating a composite material, the method
comprising:
applying an adhesion promotion layer to the composite
material, wherein the composite material comprises a plurality
of layers stacked one upon another so as to include a major
surface formed by an outermost layer and an edge portion at
which edges of the plurality of layers are exposed, wherein
applying an adhesion promotion layer comprises applying the
adhesion promotion layer to at least the edges of the plurality of
layers of the composite material that are exposed at the edge
portion, wherein the adhesion promotion layer comprises a
binder paint and a plurality of metal particles within the binder
paint, wherein the binder paint comprises a hardener and a base
component that is free of pigments, wherein the binder paint
and the plurality of metal particles have a mix ratio in which
there is more by volume of the base component than the metal
particles and in which there is more by volume of the metal
particles than the hardener, and wherein the binder paint
comprises a service temperature range from about -65 degrees
Fahrenheit to about 350 degrees Fahrenheit;
roughening a surface of the adhesion promotion layer by
grit blasting the surface at a pressure of between 20 psi and
40 psi and at an angle of between 30 degrees and 60 degrees;
applying a twin wire arc bond coating to the adhesion
promotion layer after the roughening of the surface of the
adhesion promotion layer, wherein the twin wire arc bond
coating comprises a thickness of about 50 µm to about 150 µm;
and
applying a thermal spray coating comprising a high
velocity oxygen fuel spray coating including metal particles to
the twin wire arc bond coating, wherein applying the thermal
spray coating comprises applying the thermal spray coating to
the twin wire arc bond coating on at least the edges of the
plurality of layers of the composite material, wherein the high
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

3
velocity oxygen fuel spray coating comprises a thickness of
about 150 µm to about 400 µm.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Ayers US 3,814,558 June 4, 1974
Herman US 4,391,928 July 5, 1983
Goel US 4,698,408 Oct. 6, 1987
Imao US 4,704,328 Nov. 3, 1987
Fisher US 5,230,946 July 27, 1993
Wick US 5,261,191 Nov. 16, 1993
Sangeeta US 6,294,261 B1 Sept. 25, 2001
Mor US 6,428,630 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Dietz US 6,475,616 B1 Nov. 5, 2002
Lin US 2003/0026917 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Saylor US 2003/0134956 A1 July 17, 2003
Darolia US 6,607,611 B1 Aug. 19, 2003
Chapman US 2003/0173460 A1 Sept. 18, 2003
Passman US 2007/0042126 A1 Feb. 22, 2007
Fernihough US 2008/0085395 A1 Apr. 10, 2008
Nazmy US 2008/0241560 A1 Oct. 2, 2008
Helmick US 2010/0247927 A1 Sept. 30, 2010
Knepper US 2011/0091709 A1 Apr. 21, 2011
Raybould US 2012/0219808 A1 Aug. 30, 2012
Smith Proceed. 7th Natl.
Thermal Spray Conf.
June 24, 1994
AWS AWS Welding
Handbook 9.3, Ch. 11
2007
Desothane® Data Desothane® HS
Polyurethane
Topcoats/CA 8000
Series
Feb. 2010
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

4
1) Claims 1, 2, 6–8, 22, 31, and 32 over Knepper in view of Imao,
Goel, Desothane® Data, Fisher, Passman, Dietz, either Saylor or Wick,
Smith, AWS, Helmick, and either Nazmy or Raybould;
2) Claim 3 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel, Desothane® Data,
Fisher, Passman, Dietz, either Saylor or Wick, Smith, AWS, Helmick, either
Nazmy or Raybould, and Ayers;
3) Claim 5 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel, Desothane® Data,
Fisher, Passman, Dietz, either Saylor or Wick, Smith, AWS, Helmick, and
either Nazmy or Raybould, alone or in view of Chapman;
4) Claim 23 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel, Desothane® Data,
Fisher, Passman, Dietz, either Saylor or Wick, Smith, AWS, Helmick, either
Nazmy or Raybould, and Mor;
5) Claim 27 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel, Desothane® Data,
Fisher, Passman, Dietz, either Saylor or Wick, Smith, AWS, Helmick, either
Nazmy or Raybould, Darolia, and Lin;
6) Claims 11, 13, and 25 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel,
Desothane® Data, Dietz, Smith, AWS, Helmick, Nazmy, Fernihough,
Passman, and either Saylor or Wick;
7) Claim 12 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel, Desothane® Data,
Dietz, Smith, AWS, Helmick, Nazmy, Fernihough, Passman, and either
Saylor or Wick, and Ayres;
8) Claim 14 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel, Desothane® Data,
Dietz, Smith, AWS, Helmick, Nazmy, Fernihough, Passman, and either
Saylor or Wick, and Fisher;
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

5
9) Claim 26 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel, Desothane® Data,
Dietz, Smith, AWS, Helmick, Nazmy, Fernihough, Passman, and either
Saylor or Wick, and Mor;
10) Claim 28 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel, Desothane® Data,
Dietz, Smith, AWS, Helmick, Nazmy, Fernihough, Passman, and either
Saylor or Wick, and either the admitted state of the prior art or Herman; and
11) Claims 29 and 30 over Knepper in view of Imao, Goel,
Desothane® Data, Dietz, Smith, AWS, Helmick, Nazmy, Fernihough,
Passman, and either Saylor or Wick, and Sangeeta.
OPINION
The Appellant argues only the independent claims (1 and 11) (Appeal
Br. 8–19). We therefore limit our discussion to those claims. The dependent
claims stand or fall with the independent claim from which they depend. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013).
The Appellant argues that “the large number of references cited and
combined in an effort to reject the currently pending claims is unreasonable
and such a combination would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the
art” (Appeal Br. 8), and “[t]here is no motivation to combine the fourteen
cited references and to select arbitrary features of each reference in an effort
to arrive at the claimed features” (Appeal Br. 9). The Appellant sets forth the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion and then asserts that “the asserted
combination is merely a statement of possibilities of combining various
features extracted from the cited art without any suggestion within the
references that it would be desirable to combine the references in any
manner, or to solve a problem identified in any of the cited references”
(Appeal Br. 10), and:
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

6
The motivation quoted above has no relation to any
recognized problem, deficiency, or purpose of the cited art.
Nothing in either Knepper, Imao, Goel, or Dietz provides a
reasonable basis or rationale for why or how one of ordinary
skill in the art would modify Knepper, Imao, Goel, or Dietz
with the disclosures of one another. There was no known
problem that would lead to the result of combining Knepper,
Imao, Goel, and Dietz in such a way as to arrive at the claimed
features. This alleged motivation amounts merely to a general
conclusory statement without a clear articulation of the reasons
why the claimed invention would have been obvious. [(Appeal
Br. 10–11).]

The Appellant’s arguments do not specifically address the Examiner’s
reasoning in arriving at the obviousness conclusion. The Appellant’s broad
assertions are insufficient to show that the Examiner’s reasoning is incorrect
and, consequently, there is reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness.
The Appellant sets forth three specific arguments: 1) the prior art fails
to suggest the recited service temperature; 2) the prior art’s teaching of high
velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) and arc-wire coatings is only for ceramics; and
3) the prior art fails to suggest the recited relative coating thicknesses
(Appeal Br. 11–18).
Service Temperature
The Appellant’s claims 1 and 11 require an adhesion promoting layer
comprising a binder paint having a service temperature of about -65 to about
350 °F. The Appellant’s Specification states (¶ 23):
The binder paint of one aspect has a service temperature range
with an upper end temperature that is sufficiently high so as to
withstand the transient high temperatures to which the binder
paint may be subjected during a thermal spray process. In one
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

7
aspect, for example, the binder paint service temperature ranges
from about -65°F to about +350°F.
Knepper, before thermal spraying a functional coating onto an aircraft
or spacecraft fiber composite component (1), applies a resin/adhesive primer
coating (13) to the fiber composite component (1) (¶¶ 25, 34, 44, 45, 58).
Imao discloses an undercoat composition that comprises an inorganic
filler and an organic binder that can be a urethane resin, and strongly adheres
a flame-sprayed ceramic to a fiber-reinforced resin (col. 1, ll. 7–11; col. 3,
ll. 8–17, 43–46, 54–55).
Desothane® Data discloses a polyurethane topcoat for conventional
and high-solids epoxy primers that is useful for protecting the exterior of
aircraft and has a service temperature of -65 to 350 °F (pp. 1–2).
Goel discloses a high-heat-resistant, two-component, polyurethane-
based adhesive that has excellent adhesion to fiberglass-reinforced plastic
and withstands high heat bake cycles of around 400 °F for one hour or more
(col. 1, ll. 6–13, 64–66; col. 4, ll. 18–25). Thus, the adhesive can “withstand
the transient high temperatures to which the binder paint may be subjected
during a thermal spray process” (Spec. ¶ 23) and, therefore, can meet the
Appellant’s service temperature range requirement of about -65 °F to about
+350 °F.
The Appellant argues that Desothane® Data’s topcoat does not
correspond to the Appellant’s adhesion promotion layer (Appeal Br. 13), and
in reliance upon Goel’s column 1, lines 53–57, argues that Goel’s 400 °F is
not a service temperature, but, rather, is a temperature at which adhesion loss
is resisted after exposure for 30 minutes or more (Appeal Br. 12).
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

8
The cited portion of Goel discloses: “The conventional adhesives
based on the above polymerization reactions are known to have poor high
heat resistance and usually suffer loss of adhesion after high temperature
exposures near 400 degrees F. for 30 minutes or more.” Goal’s adhesive
“withstands high heat bake cycles of around 400 degrees F. for a period of
one hour or more” (col. 4, ll. 23–25). Imao would have indicated to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed undercoat composition comprising
an inorganic filler and an organic binder that can be a urethane resin would
strongly adhere Knepper’s thermal sprayed coating to the fiber composite
component, thereby functioning as Knepper’s resin/adhesive primer coating.
Goel’s disclosure that the high-heat-resistant, two-component, polyurethane-
based adhesive has excellent adhesion to fiberglass-reinforced plastic and
withstands high heat bake cycles of around 400 °F for one hour or more
would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that Goel’s two-
component, polyurethane-based adhesive would be suitable as Imao’s
urethane resin used as the resin/adhesive primer coating on Knepper’s
aircraft component which, as indicated by Desothane® Data, has a service
temperature no higher than 350 °F. Thus, the applied references would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity,
to the Appellant’s adhesion promoting layer comprising a binder paint
having a service temperature of about -65 to about 350 °F. See KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also
a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”). In making an
obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
550 U.S. at 418.
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

9
High Velocity Oxygen Fuel and Arc-wire Coatings
Smith discloses that high interfacial stresses in fiberglass-reinforced
polymers (FRPs) many times need to be accommodated by interfacial layers
to achieve acceptable bonding of a thermal spray coating (pp. 68–69), and
that an wire arc spray interlayer: 1) due to lower droplet impact velocities,
lowers the potential for FRP fiber/matrix damage; 2) due to low jet
temperature, eliminates polymer matrix degradation; and 3) due to increased
thermal conductivity, protects underlying FRPs from thermal degradation
from subsequent combustion (HVOF) or plasma spraying (p. 69, col. 2). The
exemplified thermal spray coating materials for FRPs include aluminum and
copper (p. 69; Table 3).
The Appellant argues that Smith’s disclosure that “[i]f ceramic
coatings are needed, many times a wire-arc sprayed interlayer is deposited
first followed by a plasma sprayed ceramic layer” (p. 69, col. 2) would have
indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that a wire-arc sprayed interlayer
is to be deposited onto FRP before a thermal spray coating is applied thereto
only when the coating is ceramic (Appeal Br. 14).
Smith’s benefits of a wire-arc sprayed interlayer set forth above, i.e.,
lowering of the potential for FRP fiber/matrix damage, elimination of
polymer matrix degradation, and protection of underlying FRPs from
thermal degradation from subsequent combustion or plasma spraying, appear
to be applicable to combustion and plasma spraying generally. Hence, one of
ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would
have applied a wire-arc sprayed interlayer to FRP before combustion or
plasma spraying onto it any of Smith’s disclosed ceramics, metals, or
WC/Co (p. 69). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

10
Relative Coating Thicknesses
Helmick discloses “a coating system that provides sulfidation
protection at elevated temperatures within a sulfur-containing environment,
such as the hostile thermal environment of a gasification system used in gas
turbine power generation plants” (¶ 1). The surface region (12) coated can be
a nickel-based superalloy (¶ 12). The coating system comprises a thermal
barrier coating (TCB 18) adhered to the surface region (12) by a bond
coat (16) overlying and directly contacting the surface (12) (¶ 13). The bond
coat (16) can be made of niobium or molybdenum blended with a bond coat
composition such as CoCrAlY or FeCrAlY (¶ 20). A particularly suitable
TBC material is yttria-stabilized zirconia (¶ 13). The bond coat (16) can be
formed by cored-wire arc spray and has a particularly suitable thickness
range of about 150–400 micrometers (¶¶ 15, 21). The TBC can be formed by
HVOF and typically has a thickness of about 75–300 micrometers (¶ 13).
The Appellant argues that “neither Smith nor AWS, nor any of the
remaining cited references, teach or suggest applying a twin wire arc bond
coating having a thickness of about 50 µm to about 150 µm followed by a
thermal spray coating including a high velocity oxygen fuel spray coating
having a thickness of about 150 µm to about 400 µm” (Appeal Br. 14).
The Examiner relies upon Helmick for a disclosure of thickness
ranges overlapping the Appellant’s recited ranges (Final 15). Use of amounts
within the overlapping ranges would have been prima facie obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); In re Malagari,
499 F.2d 1297, 1303 (CCPA 1974). The Appellant does not address
Helmick.
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

11
The Appellant argues that “the ranges ensure that the twin wire arc
bond coating is thinner than the subsequent functional layer,2 but is
sufficiently thick so as to withstand the heat incurred during the application
of the subsequent functional layer” (Appeal Br. 14–15).
That limitation is not in the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset
because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”).
Regardless, Smith would have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a
wire-arc sprayed interlayer having sufficient thickness to protect underlying
FRPs from subsequent combustion or plasma spraying (p. 69, col. 2).
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections.3 Accordingly, we affirm the rejections.

2 The twin wire arc bond coating and the subsequent functional layer
(thermal spray coating) can have the same thickness (about 150 µm).
3 In the Reply Brief, the Appellant argues:
Knepper and Imao do not specifically indicate that the edge
portions of the disclosed articles are also coated with the
adhesion promotor and thermal spray coating. Fischer is cited
to correct this deficiency; however, Fischer does not relate to
the use of an adhesion promotor or thermal spray coating.
Fischer merely teaches an anti-oxidation coating applied to an
edge of a stack of carbon fiber layers such as for coating
exposed peripheral drive areas of carbon discs of a multi-disc
aircraft disc brake. This coating is desirable as these discs are
stacked with exposed edges that benefit from being sealed
through the methods described in Fischer. The materials
disclosed by Knepper and Imao are neither disclosed nor
suitable for use as carbon discs of multi-disc aircraft brakes.
Further, Fischer would not benefit from use of the modified
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

12
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–8,
22, 31, 32
103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Fisher,
Passman, Dietz,
either Saylor or
Wick, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
either Nazmy or
Raybould
1, 2, 6–8,
22, 31, 32

3 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Fisher,
Passman, Dietz,
either Saylor or
Wick, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
either Nazmy or
Raybould, Ayers
3
5 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Fisher,
Passman, Dietz,
5

adhesion promotor and thermal spray material described in the
Final Office Action, such that there is no motivation to combine
Fischer with Knepper, Imao, and Goel as alleged in the Final
Office Action. [(Reply Br. 3–4)]
We do not consider this argument because it is untimely. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2011) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not
raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will
not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless
good cause is shown.”).
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

13
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
either Saylor or
Wick, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
either Nazmy or
Raybould,
Chapman
23 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Fisher,
Passman, Dietz,
either Saylor or
Wick, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
either Nazmy or
Raybould, Mor
23
27 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Fisher,
Passman, Dietz,
either Saylor or
Wick, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
either Nazmy or
Raybould, Darolia,
Lin
27
11, 13, 25 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Dietz, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
Nazmy,
Fernihough,
Passman, either
Saylor or Wick
11, 13, 25
12 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Dietz, Smith,
12
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

14
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
AWS, Helmick,
Nazmy,
Fernihough,
Passman, either
Saylor or Wick,
Ayers
14 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Dietz, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
Nazmy,
Fernihough,
Passman, either
Saylor or Wick,
Fisher
14
26 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Dietz, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
Nazmy,
Fernihough,
Passman, either
Saylor or Wick,
Mor
26
28 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Dietz, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
Nazmy,
Fernihough,
Passman, either
Saylor or Wick,
either the admitted
state of the prior
art or Herman
28
Appeal 2021-000838
Application 14/058,804

15
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
29, 30 103 Knepper, Imao,
Goel, Desothane®
Data, Dietz, Smith,
AWS, Helmick,
Nazmy,
Fernihough,
Passman, either
Saylor or Wick,
Sangeeta
29,30
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–8,
11–14, 22,
23, 25–32

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