Ex parte BARBOUR

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 1998

08096337 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 23, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GEORGE E. BARBOUR
__________
Appeal No. 95-4020
Application No. 08/096,3371
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, GARRIS and WARREN, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the refusal of the
examiner to allow claims 1, 3 through 6, 10 through 13 and 15
through 20 as amended subsequent to the final rejection. These
are all of the claims remaining in the application.
Appeal No. 95-4020
Application No. 08/096,337
2
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of
carburizing ferrous metal parts in a furnace having a process
chamber which comprises: providing an endothermic carrier gas
formed by partial reaction of fuel gas and air in an externally
heated catalyst filled chamber and feeding the carrier gas into
the process chamber so as to provide a furnace atmosphere having
a carbon potential of at least about .5%; and providing a source
of air and a source of enriching gas and feeding the air and the
enriching gas simultaneously to the process chamber so as to
raise the carbon potential of the furnace atmosphere by at least
about .1%. This appealed subject matter is adequately
illustrated by independent claim 1 which reads as follows:
1. A method of carburizing ferrous metal parts in a
furnace having a process chamber in which the ferrous metal parts
are carburized comprising the steps of:
i) heating the process chamber to a temperature in excess
of about 1100EF;
ii) charging the ferrous parts to be carburized into the
process chamber;
iii) providing a carrier gas comprising an endothermic
carrier gas formed by partial reaction of fuel gas and air in an
externally heated catalyst filled chamber, and feeding the
carrier gas into the process chamber so as to provide a furnace
atmosphere in the process chamber having a dew point and having a
carbon potential of at least about .5%;
iv) providing a source of air and a source of enriching gas
and feeding the air and the enriching gas simultaneously to the
Appeal No. 95-4020
Application No. 08/096,337
3
process chamber so as to raise the carbon potential of the
furnace atmosphere in the process chamber by at least about .1%;
and
v) discharging the ferrous metal parts from the furnace.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
European patent (Stickles) 024,106 Feb. 25, 1981
British patent (Paterson) 2,076,023 Nov. 25, 1981
German patent (Mueller) 205,187 Dec. 12, 1983
Kühn, “Carburizing with Direct-feed Mixtures of Natural Gas and
Air,” Heat Treatment of Metals, (1993.2) pp. 39-44.
Metals Handbook, “Gas Carburizing,” Ninth Edition, Vol. 4 (1979)
pp. 135-175.
The appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kühn or alternatively as being
unpatentable over Stickles or Mueller or Paterson in view of the
Metals Handbook.
None of the above noted rejections can be sustained.
As correctly indicated by the appellant, the applied prior
art contains no teaching or suggestion concerning the here
claimed step iii) of providing an endothermic carrier gas formed
by partial reaction of fuel gas and air and feeding the carrier
gas into the process chamber in combination with the here claimed
step iv) of feeding an air and enriching gas simultaneously into
Appeal No. 95-4020
Application No. 08/096,337
4
the process chamber so as to raise the carbon potential of the
furnace atmosphere. Instead, the primary references generate a
furnace atmosphere basically by injecting a hydrocarbon gas and
oxygen directly into the process chamber.
In this regard, it is the examiner’s position that “the
instant claimed carrier gas and enriching gas are [both] fuel gas
as defined by the appellant” and that, “[c]onsequently, with
respect to the instant [independent] claims 1 and 15, steps iii)
and iv) read on providing a mixture of fuel gas with air”
(Answer, page 6). This is clearly erroneous. Each of the
independent claims on appeal explicitly defines the carrier gas
as “formed by partial reaction of fuel gas and air.” As a
result, the claimed step of “feeding the carrier gas into the
process chamber” requires feeding the aforementioned partial
reaction product and thus plainly would not “read on providing a
mixture of fuel gas with air” as urged by the examiner.
In addition to the foregoing, the examiner points out that
the applied references show that it was known in the prior art to
form carrier gas in an externally heated chamber (e.g., see the
paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the Answer). We appreciate
this fact which was also pointed out by the appellant in the
background section of his specification. However, we find
Appeal No. 95-4020
Application No. 08/096,337
5
nothing and the examiner points to nothing in the applied
references which would have suggested modifying this prior art
practice in such a manner as to result in the here claimed method
and, in particular, steps iii) and iv) thereof.
For the reasons set forth above, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of the appealed claims based upon Kühn
or alternatively based upon Stickles or Mueller or Paterson in
view of the Metals Handbook.
Appeal No. 95-4020
Application No. 08/096,337
6
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 95-4020
Application No. 08/096,337
7
Kenneth A. Clark
Rankin, Hill, Lewis & Clark
925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 700
Cleveland, OH 44115-1405