10566033 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2012)

Ex Parte Eichberger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 14, 2012

10566033 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte HEINZ EICHBERGER and KARL-JOSEF SCHNEIDER ____________ Appeal 2010-008030 Application 10/566,033 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEVEN D. A. MCCARTHY, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008030 Application 10/566,033 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Heinz Eichberger and Karl-Josef Schneider (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The invention is a method of charging fine-grained metals into an electric-arc furnace. See Spec. 1, ll. 7-9. Appellants seek review of the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 13, 15, 17, and 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mittag (US 6,477,195 B2, iss. Nov. 5, 2002) and Goss (US 3,258,328, iss. Jun. 28, 1966). Claims 10 and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pantke (US 3,634,592, iss. Jan. 11, 1972) and Goss. Claims 3, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mittag, Goss, and Reuter (US 3,379,426 iss. Apr. 23, 1968). Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pantke, Goss and Reuter. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 22-26 over Mittag and Goss Claims 3, 11 and 12 over Mittag, Goss and Reuter The Examiner determines that the combined teachings of Mittag and Goss render claims 1 and 22 unpatentable. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Mittag discloses a sponge iron is introduced through a down pipe…with…large quantities of up to 7,000 kg/min (col. 1, lines 35-50) undisturbed Appeal 2010-008030 Application 10/566,033 3 by gravitation (col. 2, lines 8-14). Since the down pipe…has a shape (rounded shape, col. 1, lines 42- 43) and layout the same of [sic] the down pipe (12) of the present application (both vertically mounted), therefore, Mittag also discloses the bulk material stream is not substantially enlarged during the fall onto the melt as same as the present application. Ans. 7. Appellants contend that [i]n none of the Figures is the sponge iron jet 15 anything but fan-like; i.e. it expands as it falls, it is broader at the bottom than at the top. Mittag also describes this expansion by stating that the falling sponge iron 15 forms its periphery a [sic] "cone envelope" when falling. Rep. Br. 10; see also Mittag, col. 4, ll. 48-52. We agree with Appellants. As argued by Appellants supra, Mittag states that its bulk material stream forms a cone shape after exiting the downpipe. Such a change in shape of the bulk material stream cannot take place without enlargement of the bulk material stream. Moreover, as shown in the drawings, Mittag’s bulk material stream is clearly enlarged. In view of these disclosures, the Examiner cannot draw a reasonable inference that Mittag’s bulk material stream is not substantially enlarged. The Examiner does not rely upon Goss to teach “the bulk material stream is not substantially enlarged.” Ans. 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, 2, 4-9, and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mittag and Goss. Furthermore, the Examiner cites Reuter only as disclosing a material stream passed through an iris. Ans. 6, citing Reuter, col. 3, ll. 46-55. Since Appeal 2010-008030 Application 10/566,033 4 Reuter does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Mittag and Goss as applied to dependent claims 3, 11, and 12, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 11, and 12 as unpatentable over Mittag, Goss, and Reuter. Claims 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 21 Appellants argue that neither Mittag nor Goss discloses an electric– arc furnace “wherein at an opening of the downpipe into the furnace an adjustable dosing orifice is configured to control a flow of the material into the furnace.” App. Br. 8. (Emphasis added). The Examiner does not provide a persuasive response to this argument. Furthermore, we agree with Appellants that in Goss “[t]he gate 23 is furthermore provided between the hoper [sic] 19 and the chute 18 and not at the opening of the chute 18 into the tap ladle 17, much less at an opening of the chute 18 into the furnace 11 as is required by claim 10.” Id. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, and claims 13, 15, 17, 20, and 21 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mittag and Goss. Claims 10 and 13-21 over Pantke and Goss Claim 9 over Pantke, Goss and Reuter The Examiner concludes that the combined teachings of Pantke and Goss render claim 10 unpatentable. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Pantke discloses suction device [sic] for an electric arc furnace comprising a furnace roof (1d) having at least one opening (col. 4, lines 47-49) being connected with a downpipe (4) leading to the Appeal 2010-008030 Application 10/566,033 5 furnace from outside for supplying material to be charged, wherein at the opening of the downpipe into furnace [sic] a dosing orifice is provided (figure 1)…. Goss discloses an opening of the downpipe (18), which is making [sic] by adjustable gate (23), into the furnace an adjustable dosing orifice [sic]. It would have been obvious to one [sic] ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize in Pantke an opening of the downpipe into the furnace an adjustable dosing orifice [sic] as taught by Goss in order to control a flow of the material into the furnace. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that “had a person skilled [in the art] sought to incorporate the adjustable gate 23 of Goss into the system of Pantke, the adjustable gate would have been incorporated at the point of charging arrangement 5, 6 and 10 in Pantke and not at an opening of the downpipe into the furnace.” Reply Br. 15. The Appellants are correct. Pantke describes a furnace having an adjustable dosing mechanism (metering device 5) that “accommodate[s] the feed device to various furnace requirements…[by] providing means for adjusting the total sponge-iron feed rate as well as the feed rates of the sponge iron to each of the charging openings.” Pantke, col. 2, ll. 67-71. The Examiner has provided no reasoned explanation as to why an additional adjustable dosing mechanism is needed in the Pantke device. Nor has the Examiner proposed that it would have been obvious to substitute the adjustable dosing mechanism (gate 23) disclosed by Goss for the adjustable dosing mechanism (metering device 5) disclosed by Pantke. Furthermore, even if the Examiner had proposed such a substitution, it would not have Appeal 2010-008030 Application 10/566,033 6 rendered claim 10 obvious because, as argued by Appellants, substitution of Goss’s gate 23 for Pantke’s metering device 5 would not have resulted in an adjustable dosing orifice at an opening of the downpipe as required by claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and claims 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pantke in view of Goss. Since Reuter does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Pantke and Goss as applied to dependent claim 11, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Pantke, Goss, and Reuter. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-10, 13, 15, 17, and 20-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mittag and Goss is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10 and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pantke and Goss is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3, 11, and 12 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mittag, Goss, and Reuter is reversed. Appeal 2010-008030 Application 10/566,033 7 The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pantke, Goss, and Reuter is reversed. REVERSED hh