Ex Parte Ishibashi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2017

13867275 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2017)

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.
13/867,275 04/22/2013 Kenichi Ishibashi 6006-0055 7358
39083 7590 07/12/2017
KFNF AT Y VATDYA T T P
EXAMINER
3000 K Street, N.W. NGUYEN, CHAU N
Suite 310
Washington, DC 20007 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2017 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):
avaidya@kviplaw.com
u spto @ kviplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENICHIISHIBASHI, KAZUMI MOCHIZUKI, and
YASUNOBU KONDO
Appeal 2016-007422
Application 13/867,275
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—8. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §6.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an electrical conductor
comprising aluminum alloy wires that are twisted together.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An electric wire comprising a conductor obtained by
twisting together aluminum alloy wires, wherein the conductor
is formed with a conductor twist pitch of 7 to 36 times a
predetermined diameter thereof, and a composition of an
aluminum alloy before formation of the aluminum alloy wires
contains 0.1 to less than 1.0% by weight of Fe, 0 to 0.08% by
Appeal 2016-007422
Application 13/867,275
weight of Zr, 0.02 to 2.8% by weight of Si, and 0.05 to 0.63%
by weight of Cu and/or 0.03 to 0.45% by weight of Mg, with
the remainder being A1 and unavoidable impurities.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Fujiwara US 2003/0111256 A1 June 19, 2003
Detian US 7,544,886 B2 June 9, 2009
Susai US 7,550,675 B2 June 23, 2009
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Susai.
2. Claims 1—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujiwara in view of Detian.
We affirm the stated rejections. Our reasoning follows.
Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we
decide this appeal as to both grounds of rejection.
Rejection 1.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s determination that
“Fujiwara discloses an electric wire comprising a conductor obtained by
twisting together aluminum alloy wires (stranded wire, see abstract),
wherein the conductor is formed of a composition of an aluminum alloy”
which composition corresponds to the composition of the aluminum alloy, as
claimed (Final Act. 2; Fujiwara 22—29; see generally App. Br.).
2
Appeal 2016-007422
Application 13/867,275
The Examiner finds that “Susai et al. discloses a conductor which is
formed with a conductor twist pitch” that falls within the claimed ranges “of
7 to 36 or 10 to 30 times the predetermined diameter of the conductor”
(claims 1 and 4) as evinced by Example 2. In Example 2, the conductor
twist pitch is 25 times the “diameter of the conductor (Ex. 2, cross section
area of the conductor being 0.5 mm2 = 0.7979 mm in diameter, twist pitch =
20 mm, therefore 20 mm -s- 0.7979 mm = 25, which means 0.7979 x 25 =
twist pitch 20 mm)” (Final Act. 3).
Based on the combined teachings of Fujiwara and Susai, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to make the twisted wire conductor of Fujiwara with a conductor twist
pitch value that is a multiple of the conductor diameter, as claimed, given
that Susai exemplifies forming a twisted wire conductor with a twist pitch
value being a multiple of conductor diameter value falling within the
claimed range as a workable exemplified embodiment for a similar twisted
wire conductor (Final Act. 3,8).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s calculation is a “manipulation of
Susai’s disclosed values” which “does not rise to the level of disclosure by
Susai itself of a mathematical relationship between the strand pitch and the
conductor diameter” rendering “Susai’s alleged disclosure of a strand pitch
of 25 times the conductor diameter” as being “merely coincidental” (App.
Br. 11). However, Appellants do not directly dispute the Examiner’s
calculation as failing to show that the Example 2 conductor of Susai would
have a conductor twist pitch to conductor diameter ratio (25) that falls within
the range required by claim 1.
3
Appeal 2016-007422
Application 13/867,275
Consequently, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s findings and calculation as to Susai’s teaching/suggestion “of a
strand pitch [conductor twist pitch] of 25 times the conductor diameter” by
Appellants’ characterization of Example 2 of Susai as being a “coincidental”
disclosure (id.).
Moreover, Appellants contend that Susai attributes the bending
performance of Example 2 to the aluminum alloy composition and argue that
Susai teaches away from achieving a desired flexibility of a conductor via a
mathematical relationship between the twist pitch and conductor wire
diameter and that the only guidance toward the claimed subject matter
including the claimed conductor twist pitch to conductor diameter
relationship is found in Appellants’ Specification, which suggests the
rejection is premised on impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 12—16).
However, while not explicitly described by Fujiwara, the conductor of
Fujiwara (like the conductor of Susai) has a certain diameter and the
conductor of Fujiwara would be expected to have a certain twist pitch value
for the stranded wire structure. Appellants have not satisfactorily explained
why an ordinarily skilled artisan in forming the twisted wire conductor of
Fujiwara would not have been led to form the electrical conductor with a
conductor cross-sectional area (and corresponding diameter) and twist pitch
as taught/suggested by Example 2 of Susai as being a workable construction
for a flexible twisted wire conductor, and, consequently, representing
workable diameter and workable twist pitch values for the conductor of
Fujiwara (Ans. 4—6).
Appellants argue that Susai discloses that the material composition of
the aluminum alloy and the material processes contribute to the desired
4
Appeal 2016-007422
Application 13/867,275
performance of the stranded wire, including flexibility, conductivity and
bending resistance; however, Appellants likewise disclose that the wire alloy
composition and material processes influence such wire performance
characteristics (App. Br. 11—12; Spec. 5,1. 8 — 7,1. 16). Consequently, these
disclosures of Susai do not constitute a lack of suggestion of or a teaching
away from employing a suitable twist pitch and conductor diameter in
forming the twisted wire conductor structure as exemplified by Susai’s
Example 2.
In this regard, Appellants have not particularly argued, much less
established, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the
applied prior art, including Susai, to employ a twist pitch and conductor
diameter ratio for making a suitable twisted wire conductor that falls outside
the claim 1 twist pitch to diameter range. Consequently, Appellants’
argument that Susai teaches away from the claimed subject matter lacks
persuasive merit (App. Br. 12—15).
Appellants argue that the Examiner relies on Appellants’ disclosure in
tendering the stated rejection and, consequently, the Examiner engages in
impermissible hindsight (App. Br. 15—16). As indicated above, however, the
Examiner relies on Example 2 of Susai for a disclosure of a twist pitch value
and corresponding conductor diameter in forming a twisted wire conductor
(Final Act. 2—3, 8; Ans. 2—6). Consequently, the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection over Fujiwara and Susai has not been shown by Appellants’
argument to be “based on impermissible hindsight” as contended by
Appellants (App. Br. 16).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants present a new argument based on
information said to be gleaned from a Japanese Publication that is asserted to
5
Appeal 2016-007422
Application 13/867,275
correspond to Susai’s priority document which Japanese Publication is
argued to show that Examples 2 and 3 of Table 1 of Susai fail to correspond
to Examples 2 and 3, as referenced in columns 8 and 9 of Susai (Reply Br.
2—5). This argument is untimely and predicated on information not shown to
have been previously relied upon and shown to have been accompanied by a
verified translation that was previously entered into the record. In any event,
we observe that even if the Examiner may have overstated and/or
misapprehended the disclosure of Susai with respect to Example 2 of Table
1 and the Example 2 of Susai as presented in column 8 of Susai with respect
to showing a correspondence between the Table 1 results and the flexibility
of the Example 2 stranded wire conductor, the Examiner premises the
rejection on Susai’s teaching that the disclosed stranded wire conductor can
be successfully constructed with a twist pitch and conductor size (diameter)
relationship as provided for in the Example 2 (and Example 3) stranded wire
conductor constructions (Ans. 3—5). In this regard, Susai teaches that the
stranded wire conductors have good flexibility properties, as further
evaluated in Example 3 via testing of a bundle of the stranded wire
conductors and Fujiwara is concerned with forming a lightweight stranded
wire aluminum alloy conductor/cable having high flexibility, among other
properties (Fujiwara H 22—29, 38, 81, 106; Susai, col. 8,1. 61—col. 9,1. 22;
Fig. 3).
Thus, Appellants’ arguments fail to indicate reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Fujiwara in view of Susai.
6
Appeal 2016-007422
Application 13/867,275
Rejection 2.
Appellants present substantially similar arguments against the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Fujiwara in view of Detian as
discussed above with respect to Rejection 1 with Fujiwara being similarly
applied as previously discussed with Rejection 1 and Detian being relied
upon by the Examiner to evidence that twisted wire conductors are known to
be constructed with a twist pitch to diameter relationship that falls within
and satisfies the relationship (range) as required by Appellants’ claim 1. In
this regard, the Examiner finds that Detian discloses twisted wire conductors
having a conductor twist pitch of about 15.9 or about 16.6 times the
conductor diameter (Final Act. 5; Detian, col. 18,11. 28—33, col. 18,1. 65-
col. 19,1. 8, col. 22,11. 12—17; Examples 24, 27, 30).
For reasons set forth by the Examiner and for substantially similar
reasons to those discussed above with respect to Rejection 1, as applied
mutatis mutandis to Rejection 2, we do not find Appellants’ “coincidental”
disclosure, teaching away, and lack of suggestion (impermissible hindsight)
arguments persuasive of harmful error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection over Fujiwara and Detian in Rejection 2 (App. Br. 16—22; Ans. 6—
8).
As for the additional argument asserting that Detian represents non-
analogous art, Appellants have not satisfactorily explained why the twisted
wire conductor of Detian is not within the same field of endeavor and/or
reasonably pertinent to the problems faced with respect to Appellants’
twisted wire conductor. In this regard, we observe that Appellants identify
copper conductors as background art, not as non-analogous art (Spec. 1).
7
Appeal 2016-007422
Application 13/867,275
It follows that Appellants have not identified reversible error in
Rejection 2. Thus, we shall also affirm Rejection 2.
CONCLUSION/ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8