Ex Parte SCALZO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

12408078 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/408,078 03/20/2009 Orlando SCALZO
32292 7590 09/26/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP (PWC)
1, PLACE VILLE MARIE
SUITE 2500
MONTREAL, QC H3B IRI
CANADA
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.
05002993-1339US SC/gu 8550
EXAMINER
BELL, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
ipcanada@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ORLANDO SCALZO, MARC CAMPOMANES,
MELISSA DESPRES, ALAIN BOUTHILLIER,
and VINCENT SAVARIA
Appeal2018-000226
Application 12/408,078
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 8, 9, 13-16, 19, 21, 22, and 25-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rust2 in view of German3 and
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Pratt & Whitney Canada
Corp. Br. 2.
2 Rust et al., US 2008/0199343 Al, published Aug. 21, 2008.
3 German et al., US 6,399,018 Bl, issued June 4, 2002.
Appeal2018-000226
Application 12/408,078
Ludwig, 4 and adding other prior art to reject dependent claims 2, 7, 11, 18,
24, and 31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a process for joining powder injection
molded parts. Claim 26, the only independent claim, is illustrative:
26. A process for joining powder injection molded parts,
the method comprising:
[a] preparing at least two green parts from a feedstock,
the feedstock comprising a binder and an injection powder;
[b] placing the at least two green parts in intimate contact
while the binder is frozen;
[ c] maintaining the at least two green parts in intimate
contact with a linkage between the at least two green parts
along contact surfaces defining a joint between the at least two
green parts, to produce an interconnected green assembly;
[ d] placing the interconnected green assembly under
shape retaining conditions;
[ e] producing a seamless brown part from the at least two
green parts by
[ e 1] first heating the interconnected green
assembly to a temperature above the melting point of the
binder but below the boiling point thereof, causing the
binder to completely melt throughout the at least two
green parts to eliminate the joint between the at least two
green parts so that at least the two green parts join
seamlessly while the binder is in a liquid phase;
4 Ludwig et al., US 5,021,208, issued June 4, 1991.
2
Appeal2018-000226
Application 12/408,078
[ e2] de binding the joined green parts so formed by
removing the majority of the liquid binder away from the
seamlessly joined green parts; and
[ e3] a second stage of heating to a temperature
above the boiling point to then vaporize all the binder
after the joining of the at least two green parts has been
completed thus producing a brown part.
Br. 10 (claims appendix) (formatting added).
OPINION
Appellants have identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding
of a suggestion within the prior art to modify Rust's process of joining so
that it includes all the steps of claim 26.
In the method of claim 26, two green parts must be placed in intimate
contact while the binder is frozen, i.e., the binder cannot be melted at the
time of contacting. Also, the interconnected assembly that results from the
contact of the two frozen green parts must be placed under shape retaining
conditions, heated to completely melt the binder throughout both green parts
to eliminate the joint, subjected to debinding to remove the majority of
liquid binder, and heated to vaporize all the binder.
Rust discloses joining two green parts, but by a different process than
is claimed. Instead of placing two frozen green parts in contact with each
other and heating the entirety of the parts to join them, Rust melts only the
binder adjacent the contact surfaces of the two green parts and presses those
surfaces together before allowing the joined surfaces to solidify to form a
bonded assembly. Rust ,r 7. Rust then densifies and consolidates the
bonded assembly by debinding, sintering and/or hot isostatic pressing. Id.
3
Appeal2018-000226
Application 12/408,078
The Examiner acknowledges some of the differences and turns to
German and Ludwig. Final Act. 4--5. The problem is that both German and
Ludwig are directed to forming individual objects, not joined objects of the
type taught by Rust.
German discloses a method of multi-step forming, debinding,
sintering, and infiltrating to form a metallic object. German col. 3, 11. 2-5.
In this process, a mixture of binder, powdered first metal, and particulate
ceramic is heated and cast into a silicone rubber mold and cooled to solidify
it to form a precursor. German col. 7, 11. 9-29. The precursor is placed into
a rigid metal vessel, which is then filled with alumina powder and heated to
melt the binder. German col. 7, 11. 29-53. After removing the resulting part
from the vessel, it, along with blocks or pressed pellets of infiltration powder
placed on its back, is placed into another vessel and heated to allow the
infiltration metal to infiltrate the porous matrix of the part. German col. 7,
11. 53---65. There is no step of joining one green part to another, much less a
step of joining two green parts by placing them in contact while frozen and
completely melting the binder throughout both green parts.
Ludwig discloses a method of removing wax-based binders from
green articles that uses a specific heating schedule. Ludwig col. 1, 11. 6-13.
In Ludwig's process, a powder and binder mixture is injection molded to
form a green article and the binder is removed by heating slowly to a
temperature above the melting point of the binder, holding at that
temperature, and then heating to a temperature above the vaporization
temperature to vaporize the wax binder and conducting further heating steps
to accomplish complete vaporization. Ludwig col. 2, 11. 39-64; col. 3, 11. 5-
4
Appeal2018-000226
Application 12/408,078
30. The result is a single formed part with binder removed. Again, there is
no step of joining one green part to another.
Neither German nor Ludwig provide a suggestion for modifying the
joining process of Rust, which involves surface melting the binder in the
region to be joined, not completely melting the binder throughout both green
parts. The Examiner has failed to provide the necessary evidentiary support
for the finding of modifying the method of Rust in a way that results in the
method of claim 26.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5