Ex Parte Engler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 24, 201814624793 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/624,793 02/18/2015 53609 7590 04/26/2018 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. 2215 PERRYGREEN WAY ROCKFORD, IL 61107 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Olaf Engler 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. 510424 3227 EXAMINER MORILLO, JANELL COMBS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1733 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2018 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): RockMail@reinhartlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLAF ENGLER, HENK-JAN BRINKMAN, and NATALIE HORSTER Appeal2018-002200 Application 14/624,793 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 15, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a cold-rolled aluminum alloy strip. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. Cold-rolled aluminium alloy strip composed of an AlMg aluminium alloy, wherein the aluminium alloy comprises the following alloying elements: Appeal2018-002200 Application 14/624,793 Si :S 0.2 wt.% Fe :S 0.35 wt.% Cu :S 0.15 wt.% 0.2 wt.% :S Mn :S 0.35 wt.% 4.1 wt.% :S Mg :S 4.5 wt.% Cr :S 0.1 wt.% Zn :S 0.25 wt.% Ti :S 0.1 wt.%. the remainder being Al and inevitable impurities, amounting to a maximum of 0.05 wt.% individually and to maximum of 0.15 wt.% in total, wherein the aluminium alloy strip has a recrystallized micro structure, the grain size of the microstructure ranges from 15 µm to 25 µm and the final soft annealing of the aluminium alloy strip is performed in a continuous furnace. Wycliffe The Reference us 6,086,690 The Rejection July 11, 2000 Claims 1-8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wycliffe. OPINION We affirm the rejection. The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 5-11). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. Claims 2-8, 15, and 16 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Wycliffe produces an aluminum alloy sheet article by casting an aluminum alloy to form a 400-520 QC cast slab, hot rolling and cold rolling the cast slab to form an intermediate sheet of intermediate gauge, cooling the 2 Appeal2018-002200 Application 14/624,793 intermediate sheet, thereby reducing its grain size, and warm and cold rolling the cooled intermediate sheet to final gauge at a temperature of ambient to 340 QC to form the sheet article, the rolling steps being carried out continuously without intermediate coiling or full annealing of the intermediate sheet (col. 2, 11. 27-38; col. 3, 11. 38--42; col. 5, 11. 47--49). The sheet article is coiled and then batch annealed at 325--450 QC or annealed continuously offline to recrystallize it such that it has a fine grain size and a high yield strength ( col. 3, 11. 42-50; col. 6, 11. 20-22). The cold rolling "allows better shape control of the sheet article and a finer grain size and better strength after carrying out the recrystallization batch anneal" ( col. 6, 11. 25-27) and causes the intermediate sheet to be "reduced in thickness preferably by at least 40%, more preferably by at least 60%, to a final gauge (usually in the range of 1 to 3 mm). The significant reduction in thickness produces a suitable grain size and yield strength" ( col. 5, 1. 66 - col. 6, 1. 4). "The grain size, yield strength and ductility of the sheet so produced are comparable to sheet of the same alloy which has gone through the standard, [much] less economical, two-step hot roll and cold roll process" ( col. 5, 11. 27-30). 1 The intermediate sheet thickness reduction ensures an alloy AA57 54 "moderately fine ( e.g., 15 µm to 30 µm) grain size" ( col. 4, 11. 22- 28). That alloy contains 3.13 wt% Mg (Wycliffe's Table 1) which is not within the Appellant's claim 1 's 4.1--4.5 wt% Mg range. Wycliffe's process also is beneficial for alloys having higher Mg contents, such as alloy AA5182 (4.0-5.0 wt% Mg; Appellants' Spec. Table 1), "but the benefit may be less apparent" (col. 3, 11. 61---65). 1 The Appellants' process can be a two-step hot roll and cold roll process (Spec. ,r 24). 3 Appeal2018-002200 Application 14/624,793 Wycliffe does not report alloy AA5182' s grain size. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, given that 15-30 µm is a moderately fine and suitable grain size and that the grain size is made finer by the intermediate sheet's cooling and thickness reduction and the batch or continuous annealing (col. 3, 11. 32-50; col. 4, 11.22-28, 64---67; col. 5, 1. 67 - col. 6, 1. 4; col. 6, 11. 20-27), would have adjusted those processing steps for alloy AA5182 to obtain a moderately fine grain size such as 15-30 µm for that alloy. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (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"). The Appellants assert that "[u]nlike Wycliffe, the claimed alloy is produced using the highest speed possible, coiling the strip at the end of hot rolling, homogenizing the strip (see [0025] of the specification as originally filed; see also claim 9) and optional intermediate annealing (see id. at [0026]-[0027]; see also claim 10)" (App. Br. 6). The Appellants do not point out, and it is not apparent, where their Specification's paragraph 25 discloses producing the alloy at the highest speed possible or coiling the strip at the end of hot rolling. Also, as acknowledged by the Appellants, the intermediate annealing is optional. The Appellants' Specification states that homogenizing is performed at 480- 550 QC for 0.5 hours (Spec. ,r,r 24, 42) and "ensures a homogeneous structure and a homogeneous distribution of the alloying elements in the hot rolling ingots to be rolled" (i-f 25), but does not indicate that it affects grain size. The Appellants assert that "casting with a belt caster as is done in Wycliffe leads to strong segregations in the middle of the cast strip as a 4 Appeal2018-002200 Application 14/624,793 result of the high cooling rate, thereby strongly affecting the microstructure of the strip" (App. Br. 6). That argument is not well taken because it is merely unsupported attorney argument, and arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, Wycliffe's casting is not limited to use of a belt caster ( co 1. 3, 11. 18-30). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1-8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wycliffe is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation