Ex Parte Crafton et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 22, 2010

11835529 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/835,529 08/08/2007 Scott P. Crafton C152 1092.2 1594
26158 7590 11/23/2010
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
KASTLER, SCOTT R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOTT P. CRAFTON, PAUL M. CRAFTON,
VOLKER R. KNOBLOCH, JAMES L. LEWIS JR., and IAN FRENCH
____________

Appeal 2010-001108
Application 11/835,529
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-001108
Application 11/835,529

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A system for processing a metal casting comprising:

a first heat source for pre-heating a mold to a desired pre-heating
temperature for a molten metal to be cast;

a pouring station for pouring the molten metal into the preheated
mold;

a process control temperature station downstream from said pouring
station, said process control temperature station including a second heat
source for maintaining the metal at or above a process control temperature
for the metal as the metal at least partially solidifies to form the casting; and

a heat treatment station in which the at least partially solidified metal
is at least partially heat treated while the casting is within the mold;

wherein the process control temperature for the metal is the
temperature below which for every one minute of time the temperature of
the casting decreases, more than one minute of heat treatment is required to
attain the desired properties of the casting.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 2-3):
Costilla-Vela 5,924,470 Jul. 20, 1999
Pollkoetter 6,325,873 B1 Dec. 04, 2001

ASM International Handbook Committee, Heat Treating in, 4 ASM
Handbook 465-474 (1993) (hereafter “ASM Handbook”).

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system for processing a
metal casting. The system comprises a first heat source which pre-heats a
mold that receives molten metal to be cast, a process control temperature
station downstream from the mold, which station includes a second heat
source for maintaining the process control temperature, and a heat treatment
Appeal 2010-001108
Application 11/835,529

3
station for the partially solidified metal exiting the process control
temperature station. The castings cool sufficiently to allow the metal to
solidify in the process control temperature station although the cooling is
arrested at or above the process control temperature. Consequently, the
castings entering the heat treatment furnace can be more efficiently and
rapidly brought to their solution heat treatment temperature.
Appealed claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable Pollkoetter in view of Costilla-Vela. Claims 2-17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated
combination of references further in view of ASM Handbook.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner that Pollkoetter reasonably discloses a
system like the one presently claimed comprising a mold for a molten metal
to be cast, a process control temperature station (54) and a heat treatment
station (57). As recognized by the Examiner, Pollkoetter does not disclose
the specifics of the mold in which the molten metal is cast, including a heat
source for pre-heating the mold. We are convinced, however, that the
Examiner properly concluded that Costilla-Vela evidences the obviousness
of providing a heat source for pre-heating the mold for making the castings
of Pollkoetter. Costilla-Vela expressly teaches that “[i]t has been customary
Appeal 2010-001108
Application 11/835,529

4
to preheat the molds at the beginning of a casting cycle” (col. 1, ll. 36-38).
Since both Pollkoetter and Costilla-Vela mold aluminum castings, we agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to provide a heat source
for pre-heating the mold of Pollkoetter which makes the aluminum castings
for improving productivity and obtaining a lower scrap rate.
Appellants set forth that although Pollkoetter describes a “‘pre-form’
as having been cast…. any such casting process does not appear to be the
subject of [Pollkoetter’s] system and method of operation” (App. Br. 12, last
para.). However, although Pollkoetter does not expressly disclose that the
casting mold is a component of the disclosed system, we agree with the
Examiner that the casting step recited in claim 1 of Pollkoetter indicates that
such a casting mold is part of the overall system. In any event, we are
convinced that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to either use a pre-form from a separate casting mold or make the casting
mold part of the Pollkoetter system.
Appellants also maintain that since Pollkoetter is more specifically
directed to heating a metal pre-form piece to an elevated temperature that is
sufficient to soften the pre-form and thereafter shape it, there is no apparent
reason for Pollkoetter to pre-heat the mold in which the pre-form is formed
(App. Br. 13, first para.). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to provide a heat source for pre-heating the casting
mold of the overall system suggested by Pollkoetter for the reason set forth
by Costilla-Villa noted above, regardless of how the pre-form is
subsequently processed.
Appellants also contend that Costilla-Villa discloses a highly
specialized casting apparatus but there is no indication or suggestion that this
Appeal 2010-001108
Application 11/835,529

5
concept could be applied or even would need to be applied to the system of
Pollkoetter (App. Br. 13, second para.). However, as noted above, Costilla-
Villa clearly teaches that it was known in the prior art to pre-heat casting
molds before the invention of Costilla-Villa.
Appellants further contend that neither Pollkoetter nor Costilla-Villa
appears to even recognize or disclose such a system
including a mechanism for maintaining the castings at or
above a process control temperature for the metal thereof,
which enables the molten metal to solidify sufficiently to
form the castings to an extent needed for heat treatment, but
further minimizes the amount of time required to reheat the
castings to a heat treatment temperature and thereafter heat
treat the castings

(App. Br. 15, first para.). The Examiner properly explains, however, that
Appellants’ argument is not germane to the claimed subject matter which
defines a system or apparatus for processing a metal casting, and not the
process for doing so. The Examiner has made the reasonable finding that
heating furnace 54 of Pollkoetter is capable of maintaining the metal at or
above a process control temperature such that the metal at least partially
solidifies, as recited in the appealed claims. Appellants have not set forth
any reason for why the heating furnace of Pollkoetter would not be capable
of maintaining a process control temperature.
Appellants’ arguments against the rejection of claims 2-17 are
essentially the same as those advanced against the rejection of claim 1.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-001108
Application 11/835,529

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037