Ex Parte Morrison et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

13569246 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017)

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.
13/569,246 08/08/2012 Jay A. Morrison 2009P06038US01 9925
28524 7590 01/30/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
DANIELS, MATTHEW J
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2017 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 JAY A. MORRISON and GARY B. MERRILL
Appeal 2016-000166
Application 13/569,246
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Specification filed Aug. 8, 2012 (Spec.),
the Final Office Action mailed Mar. 16, 2015 (Final Act.), Appellants’
Appeal Brief filed June 30, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Sept. 11, 2015 (Ans.), and Appellants’ Reply Brief filed Sept. 29,
2015 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000166
Application 13/569,246
as being unpatentable over Allaire3 in view of Gao.4 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
We AFFIRM.
The claims on appeal are directed to methods of fabricating a ceramic
matrix composite structure for a turbine engine component (see, e.g., claims
1 and 10). Appellants disclose that ceramic matrix composites permit higher
operating temperatures than metals, which result in reduced cooling
requirements, higher power, greater efficiency, and/or reduced emissions.
Spec. p. 1,11. 14—19. However, although conventional ceramic matrix
composites have sufficient in-plane strength, ceramic matrix composites lack
sufficient shear strength for interlaminar shear loads. Spec. p. 1,11. 19—21.
Appellants disclose a method to introduce an out-of-plane fiber displacement
to increase the interlaminar shear strength of a ceramic matrix composite.
Spec, at p. 2,11. 25—27.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with
limitations at issue in the appeal italicized:
1. A method of fabricating a ceramic matrix composite
structure for a turbine engine component, said method
comprising:
forming a ceramic matrix composite structure including a
plurality of layers of ceramic fibers disposed between a top
surface and a bottom surface of the composite structure;
urging each of the surfaces of the composite structure
against corresponding top and bottom surfaces of a tool having
a plurality of asperities;
as a result of said urging, the asperities forming a
plurality of surface recesses on the surfaces of the composite
3 Allaire et al., US 5,110,652 A, issued May 5, 1992 (“Allaire”).
4 Gao, US 5,114,099 A, issued May 19, 1992 (“Gao”).
2
Appeal 2016-000166
Application 13/569,246
structure, wherein the plurality of the surface recesses causes
an out-of-plane sub-surface fiber displacement arranged to
increase an interlaminar shear strength of the structure in a
high-temperature combustion environment of the turbine engine
component.
Appeal Br. 8.
OPINION
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether there would have been a
reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allaire in view of Gao to
provide the method of claim 1.
The Examiner finds Allaire discloses forming a ceramic matrix
composite (CMC) that includes ceramic fibers and ceramic matrix material
by urging two surfaces of a tool against the top and bottom surfaces of fiber
layers to form a turbine blade. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds Allaire
does not disclose that the tool includes asperities to produce surface recesses
and an out-of-plane fiber displacement to increase interlaminar shear
strength. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner finds Gao discloses embossing surface asperities on the
surface of an article, such as a compressor blade. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner finds the embossing features of Gao “would have produced the
claimed surfaces [sic] recesses and out-of-plane sub-surface fiber
displacement in the Allaire CMC turbine blade.” Final Act. 2—3. This
finding is not disputed by Appellants. Appeal Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 2-3. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to include the surface embossment disclosed by Gao in the process of
Allaire to provide a turbine blade with reduced drag. Final Act. 2—3.
3
Appeal 2016-000166
Application 13/569,246
Appellants reproduce various portions of Allaire and contend that
Allaire “clearly states as an object that the fibers be disposed in directions
parallel to the respective curved surfaces.” Appeal Br. 4—5. Appellants
argue “[i]t will be appreciated by one skilled in the art that the foregoing
stated object of Allaire (fibers that are disposed in directions parallel to the
curved surface) is antithetical to the claimed ‘out-of-plane sub-surface fiber
displacement.’” Appeal Br. 6.
In view of the above, Appellants contend that, even if one were to
modify the process of Allaire in view of Gao, “the purportedly resulting out-
of-plane sub-surface fiber displacement — would destroy the stated object of
Allaire” (i.e., “the object of fibers that are disposed in directions parallel to
the curved surface”). Appeal Br. 6. Thus, modifying the process of Allaire
in view of Gao would have made “Allaire unsatisfactory for the intended
purpose of fibers that are disposed in directions parallel to the curved
surface.” Appeal Br. 6. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have lacked a reason to modify Allaire in view of Gao. Appeal Br. 6—7 and
Reply Br. 2.
Appellants’ arguments do not demonstrate a lack of reason to modify
the process of Allaire in view of Gao.
Allaire is not concerned with the fiber displacement caused by a
contoured mold surface. Allaire discloses problems with prior art processes
used to manufacture ceramic matrix composites, such as transfer molding,
which requires injecting molten glass into a mold containing pre-aligned
fibers and can lead to undesirable movement and/or breakage of the fibers.
Allaire col. 1,11. 48—53. In view of this, Allaire discloses a method of
making ceramic matrix composite articles by stacking multiple prepreg
4
Appeal 2016-000166
Application 13/569,246
sheets including a ceramic matrix and reinforcing fibers and consolidating
the stack of prepreg sheets via heat and pressure. Allaire col. 2,11. 35—39,
51—60 and col. 3,11. 7—8. Allaire discloses its object is to provide ceramic
matrix composites with cross-sections having improved internal and surface
fiber distribution with reinforcing fibers disposed in controlled directions so
that fiber shifting, bowing, and/or breakage is substantially avoided as
compared to molding processes involving injecting molten glass into a mold
containing pre-aligned fibers (e.g., transfer molding). Allaire col. 2,11. 25—
29, 35—43 and col. 3,11. 15-21.
Nor does Allaire completely forbid fiber shifting. As noted by the
Examiner at page 3 of the Answer, Allaire permits some shifting of fibers.
Specifically, Allaire discloses “[a]t the same time, it is found that sufficient
fiber redistribution and matrix flow can occur during consolidation to
convert the stepped thickness profile of the prepreg sheet stack to a
substantially smooth graded thickness profile in the consolidated article.”
Allaire col. 3,11. 22—26. Therefore, an amount of fiber redistribution and
matrix flow is foreseen and permitted by Allaire.
“If references taken in combination would produce a ‘seemingly
inoperative device, ’ . . . such references teach away from the combination
and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness.”
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(quoting In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 587 (CCPA 1969); see also In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). But Allaire does not criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from
modifying the process of Allaire to include the contoured surface of Gao in
order to obtain the reduction of drag Gao discloses as a benefit. See DePuy
5
Appeal 2016-000166
Application 13/569,246
Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away . . . if it. . . does not ‘criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”
(quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004))).
In response to the Examiner’s explanation in the Examiner’s Answer,
Appellants further contend the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight
when rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Allaire and Gao. Reply Br.
2—3. This argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner has provided a
reason to combine Allaire and Gao. In particular, the Examiner concluded it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the
surface embossment disclosed by Gao in the process of Allaire to provide a
turbine blade with reduced drag. Final Act. 2—3. Moreover, Appellants
argue impermissible hindsight because Gao relates to using an embossed
surface to reduce drag, while “[t]he claimed invention has practically
nothing to do with reducing turbulent drag.” Reply Br. 2—3. However, the
fact that Gao is directed to non-smooth surfaces to reduce drag instead of a
sub-surface fiber displacement does not demonstrate a lack of reason to
combine Allaire and Gao. Indeed, “any need or problem known in the field
of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide
a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Moreover, “the motivation in the
prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the
applicant to establish obviousness.” In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed.
Cir. 1996).
6
Appeal 2016-000166
Application 13/569,246
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 over the
combination of Allaire and Gao.
DECISION
On the record before us, we affirm the decision of the Examiner to
reject the claims.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
7