Ex Parte ROSENZWEIG et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201814107225 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/107,225 12/16/2013 6147 7590 08/30/2018 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Larry Steven ROSENZWEIG 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 268837-1 8899 EXAMINER RUMMEL, IAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1785 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 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): haeckl@ge.com gpo.mail@ge.com Lori.e.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LARRY STEVEN ROSENZWEIG, JAMES ANTHONY RUUD, and SHANKAR SIV ARAMAKRISHNAN Appeal2017-010444 Application 14/107 ,225 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, RAEL YNN P. GUEST, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 2-14 and 26-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The General Electric Company is the Applicant/ Appellant and is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-010444 Application 14/107 ,225 The invention is directed to thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) with tough and soft or reactive phases in a strain tolerant microstructure that are applied to airfoils and combustion components of a turbine using various techniques. Spec. ,r,r 1-2. The invention addresses a key concern for turbines utilized in both power generation and propulsion applications where undesirable dust in the form of ingested species or particulate can melt and adhere to TBCs forming a composition of molten dust referred to as CMAS (Calcia-Magnesia-Alumina-Silica). Id. ,r 3. Ingested CMAS induces degradation in TBCs by penetrating and filling the pores of the TBC structure that leads to loss of TBC compliance. Id. The invention addresses this concern by providing individual, randomly distributed splats of tough and soft phases stacked throughout the growth domains of the TBC where the tough phases are at least one of partially stabilized zirconia compositions and partially stabilized hafnia compositions, and the soft phases are at least one of CMAS reactive compositions and CMAS resistant compositions. Id. ,r 6. According to the Specification, the CMAS reactive or resistant soft phases are effective in reacting with or affecting any infiltrated CMAS to increase its melting point, increase its viscosity, reduce overall CMAS infiltration, and reduce the destabilization of the tough phases of the TBC. Id. ,r 27. Claim 2 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 2. A thermal barrier coating comprising: a plurality of elongate material growth domains defined between domain boundaries, wherein the domains have an intra-domain density of at least about 75%, and comprise individual, randomly distributed 2 Appeal2017-010444 Application 14/107 ,225 splats of tough and soft phases stacked throughout the growth domains, and wherein the tough phases are at least one of partially stabilized zirconia compositions and partially stabilized hafnia compositions, and the soft phases are at least one of CMAS reactive compositions and CMAS resistant compositions, wherein at least about 75% of the splats of the domains include a width to length aspect ratio of greater than or equal to about 3:1. Appellant (see generally Appeal Br.) requests review of the following rejections from the Examiner's Final Office Action: I. Claims 2-9, 11, 13, 14, and 26-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 2009/0280298 Al, published November 12, 2009) and Taylor (US 2010/0081558 Al, published April 1, 2010). II. Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosenzweig, Taylor, and Maloney (US 6,117,560, issued September 12, 2000). III. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosenzweig, Taylor, and Ulion (US 2009/0305866 Al, published December 10, 2009). OPINION Prior art rejections After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 2-14 and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) for the reasons presented by Appellant and add the following. 2 2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 2. 3 Appeal2017-010444 Application 14/107 ,225 The Examiner finds Rosenzweig teaches a TBC made via air plasma spraying of a material, such as yttria or yttria stabilized zirconia, onto a substrate that differs from the claimed TBC in that Rosenzweig does not specifically teach the combined use of yttria-stabilized zirconia or yttria- stabilized hafnia (the claimed tough material) and one of the materials corresponding to the claimed soft material simultaneously in the same TBC. Final Act. 2; Rosenzweig ,r 17. The Examiner finds Taylor teaches a TBC made from a combination of yttria-stabilized zirconia or yttria-stabilized hafnia ( claimed tough phase) and alumina ( claimed soft phase) to improve isotropy of the coating as well as other thermal barrier properties. Final Act. 2-3; Taylor ,r,r 7, 12, 13, 16, 17; see Spec. ,r 31 (disclosing alumina as a CMAS reactive or resistant soft phase material). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Taylor's materials when making Rosenzweig's thermal barrier coating in view of the benefits taught by Taylor. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also concludes that the use of Taylor's materials in Rosenzweig's TBC would inherently result in the claimed structure (growth domains, defined domain boundaries, and intra-domain density) because Rosenzweig's method of making the TBC is identical to Appellant's disclosed process. Id. Appellant argues Rosenzweig discloses its invention as a dense vertically cracked TBC characterized by randomly oriented grains contained within domains and the absence of distinct lamellar features, where the grains have a median aspect ratio of less than about 3: 1 while the claimed invention requires at least about 75% of the splats (grains) of the domains include a width to length aspect ratio of greater than or equal to about 3: 1. App. Br. 4; see Rosenzweig ,r 16. Appellant also contends that Taylor's 4 Appeal2017-010444 Application 14/107 ,225 disclosure of TBC components does not provide a sufficient basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to support the Examiner's conclusion that the combined teachings of the cited art would change the grains of Rosenzweig to meet the claimed aspect ratio. App. Br. 4. The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). The fact finder must be aware "of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966) ( warning against a "temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue")). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. The premise of the Examiner's reasoning is that using the tough and soft phases of Taylor's TBC in Rosenzweig's process of making a TBC will inherently result in a TBC having at least about 7 5% of the splats (grains) of the domains including a width to length aspect ratio of greater than or equal to about 3: 1 because the processes of Appellant and Rosenzweig are substantially identical. Ans. 4. However, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the use of Taylor's tough and soft phases in Rosenzweig's process would lead to the distribution of grains having the 5 Appeal2017-010444 Application 14/107 ,225 claimed aspect ratio when Rosenzweig only discloses a median aspect ratio of less than about 3: 1 for the entire population of grains for its TBC. Rosenzweig ,r 16. Further, there is no disclosure in Taylor, nor the Examiner directs us to any, that addresses aspect ratios for grains in TBCs or what impact the use of Taylor's combined materials would have on aspect ratios for grains in TBCs. Therefore, the Examiner failed to articulate a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning to support a conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention from the teachings of the cited art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellant and given above. ORDER The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 2-14 and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation