Ex Parte Kaga et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201713002663 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/002,663 02/07/2011 Shinichi Kaga KAS-7706 2697 24956 7590 10/03/2017 MATTINGLY & MALUR, PC 1800 DIAGONAL ROAD SUITE 210 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER CHOU, JIMMY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2017 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): ptomail @ mmiplaw .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHINICHI KAGA, NORIAKI TOMINAGA, TAKEHIKO SAITO, MITSURU ONOSE, YASUTSUGU YOSHIMURA, HIROTOSHI TAGATA, YUJIRO WATANABE, SATORU ZENITANI, and IKUO WAKAMOTO Appeal 2015-006597 Application 13/002,663 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Shinichi Kaga et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lavallee (US 2,023,086, iss. Dec. 3, 1935) and Yoshida (US 5,883,353, iss. Mar. 16, 1999). An oral hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on September 6, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-0006597 Application 13/002,663 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to a metal plate joining method and apparatus that can smooth a step defined at a joint portion of two metal plates and reduce a step gradient of the joint portion.” Spec. 11, Figs. 2, 3 A, 3B. Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A metal plate joining method including: joining end portions of two metal plates to each other by welding that defines a step at a joint portion formed at the respective end portions of the two metal plates; traveling a pair of pressure rollers, including an upper pressure roller and a lower pressure roller, in the same direction as a joining line of the joint portion; rolling the step defined at the joint portion of the two metal plates by the pair of pressure rollers; tilting respective axes of the pair of pressure rollers in a horizontal plane with respect to a straight line perpendicular to the joining line of the joint portion; pressing the pair of pressure rollers against the step defined at the joint portion using a pressure roller pressing device to reduce a thickness of the step defined at the joint portion; and driving the pair of pressure rollers using respective motors and thereby rolling the step defined at the joint portion in the traveling direction of the pressure rollers, while generating shear deformation in the step defined at the joint portion, in the direction perpendicular to the joining line of the joint portion, thereby reducing a gradient of the step defined at the joint portion. 2 Appeal 2015-0006597 Application 13/002,663 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 is directed a metal plate joining method including the step of “joining end portions of two metal plates to each other by welding that defines a step at a joint portion formed at the respective end portions of the two metal plates.” Appeal Br. 31, Claims App. (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “the lap welding method [of Lavellee] in which the ends are slightly overlapped from one quarter to three-eighths of an inch[] to each other by welding . . . defines a step at a joint portion formed at the respective end portions of the two metal plates.” Final Act. 2 (citing Lavellee p. 1, col. 1:28—55); see also Ans. 9, 10.1 We disagree with the Examiner’s finding for the following reasons. According to the lap welding method described in Lavellee, the ends of steel sheets “are slightly overlapped from one-quarter to three-eighths of an inch and a pair of roller electrodes of cylindrical shape are moved along the upper and lower surfaces of the joint thus formed while being energized from a source of welding current to effect a lap weld along the joint.” Lavellee p. 1, col. 1:28—37. Lavellee further discloses that “[t]he lap welding method has several disadvantages. The first of these comprises the loss of material which is required in order to provide the lap between the ends being welded.” Lavellee p. 1, col. 1:46-49 (emphasis added). Initially, we note that mere overlap between the ends of steel sheets does not mean that joining those overlapped ends via welding necessarily results in “a step” defined at the joint formed at the respective ends of the 1 The Examiner relies on Yoshida for disclosing upper and lower pressure rollers. See Final Act. 3^4. 3 Appeal 2015-0006597 Application 13/002,663 steel sheets. Further, given that Lavellee discloses that a loss of material is necessary to establish the lap weld between the ends of the sheets, it would stand to reason that “a step” is not defined at the joint formed at respective ends of the steel sheets. Moreover, Lavellee’s invention is directed to a butt weld wherein “the abutting edges of the sheets 11 and 12 are not distorted in any way . . . and at the same time, the original thickness of the sheets 11 and 12 along the joint 13 is not increased.'1'’ Lavellee p. 3, col. 1:24—30 (emphasis added); see also id. p. 1, col. 2:42-45; Appeal Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 10. In other words, “no step exists between the sheets 11, 12 at any time during the welding process with the butt seam welding apparatus of Lavallee.” Appeal Br. 15. As such, based on the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellants that “Lavallee does not produce a weld ‘that defines a step at a joint portion formed at the respective end portions of the two metal plates’ as in claim 1.” Reply Br. 10; see also Appeal Br. 13—15. Independent claim 7 is directed to a metal plate joining apparatus. See Appeal Br. 33—34, Claims App. Here, the Examiner relies on page 2, column 2, lines 35—64 of Lavellee for “joining respective end portions of two metal plates together by welding that defines a step at a joint portion formed at the respective end portions of the two metal plates.” See id.', see also Final Act. 6.2 The above cited portion of Lavellee describes a “butt weld . . . made along the joint 13 between the abutting edges of the sheets 11 and 12” and discusses nothing in reference to defining “a step” at joint 13 at respective ends of steel sheets 11 and 12. See Lavellee p. 2, col. 2:35—64. 2 The Examiner relies on Yoshida for disclosing upper and lower pressure rollers. See Final Act. 7. 4 Appeal 2015-0006597 Application 13/002,663 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 and their respective dependent claims 2—6 and 8 as unpatentable over Lavellee and Yoshida. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—8 as unpatentable over Lavellee and Yoshida. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation