Appeal 2007-2257
Application 11/118,509
The Examiner found that Bogard relates to the replacement of a
turbine disk air seal land ring. A replacement ring, composed of wrought
nickel-base alloys or titanium alloys, is bonded to the disk in place of a worn
or damaged land ring. The replacement ring and the disk material can be
composed of similar chemical composition as the disk material. Bogard
teaches both the disk and the replacement ring having contact areas for
bonding which are properly aligned, heated, and pressed under conditions
sufficient to ensure proper bonding by forge joining (Bogard, Col. 4, ll. 3-
53). Bogard does not expressly teach using resistance heating for the forge
joining process, and, therefore, also does not teach applying an electrical
current to either part. The Examiner cited Robertson for describing the
suitability of using the resistance heating bonding technique for wrought
alloy materials (Answer 4-5).
Appellants’ principal argument is that Robertson teaches away from
the claimed invention (Br. 8). Appellants also argue that there is no
suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings of Bogard and Robertson
(Br. 8-9).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner
properly determined that Bogard and Robertson utilize essentially the same
temperatures and pressures to join the wrought materials through the forge
joining process (Answer 7-8). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that wrought materials would have been
bonded together utilizing a resistance heating bonding technique for the
forge joining process. Appellants are reminded that the test for obviousness
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art, and that only a reasonable expectation of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013