Ex Parte Engler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2018

14624793 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2018)

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