Ex Parte Kollberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2017

13402144 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 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.
13/402,144 02/22/2012 Sten KOLLBERG 43315-328443 1312
26694 7590
VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998
EXAMINER
HA, STEVEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/07/2017 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@Venable.com
cavanhouten@venable.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEN KOLLBERG and JAN-ERIK ERIKSSON1
Appeal 2016-004222
Application 13/402,144
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 6 as unpatentable
over Fujisaki (US 5,746,268, iss. May 5, 1998) in view of Lehman (US
2003/0183363 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2003) and Kawakami (JP 57017355 A, pub.
Jan. 29, 1982, as translated) with evidence by Kollberg (US 7,669,638 B2,
iss. Mar. 2, 2010) and of dependent claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over
1 ABB AB is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004222
Application 13/402,144
these references alone or in combination with an additional prior art
reference. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a method for casting metal that comprises
introducing into a mold 1 a molten metal having a meniscus and arranging
around the mold at least one stirrer 4 comprising an iron core arranged to be
elongated along a broad side of the mold wherein the length of the iron core
is between 50% and 80% of the broad side length and wherein an upper part
of the iron core is positioned above a surface of the meniscus at a distance
up to 50 mm above the surface (claim 6, Fig. 1).
A copy of claim 6, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, appears below.
6. A method for continuous or semicontinuous casting
of metal, the method comprising:
providing a mold comprising two broad sides and two
narrow sides through which a molten metal passes during a
casting process;
introducing a molten metal into the mold, such that the
molten metal has a meniscus at a top of the molten metal;
supplying additional molten metal into the molten metal
already present in the mold via a casting tube, wherein the
additional molten metal is introduced into the molten metal
already present in the mold in a region at a distance below the
meniscus of the molten metal;
arranging around the mold at least one stirrer
comprising an iron core and a coil applied around the iron
core, such that the iron core is arranged to be elongated along
a broad side of the mold and a length of the iron core in
relation to a length of the broad side of the mold is between
50% and 80% of the length of the broad side, wherein the iron
core is arranged such that an upper part of the iron core is
2
Appeal 2016-004222
Application 13/402,144
positioned above a surface of the meniscus at a distance up to
50 mm above said surface of the meniscus; and
applying with the at least one stirrer a magnetic field to
the molten metal to stir said molten metal to create an even
flow at the meniscus for different speeds of introduction of
molten metal.
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
dependent claims 9 and 10 (see App. Br. 6—14). Therefore, these dependent
claims will stand or fall with their parent, independent claim 6.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to provide the electromagnetic stirrer of Fujisaki with an iron core
as claimed in view of Lehman (Final Action 4) and to provide this iron core
with a length within the claimed range such as 70% of the length of the mold
broad side in order to obtain the benefits taught by Kawakami (id. at 5).
Appellants state that Fujisaki “does not include any description or
illustration of electromagnetic stirring parts that extend along anything but
the entire length of the long side [of the mold]” (Br. 8) and argue that
“[cjombining Fujisaki. . . with another reference [i.e., Kawakami] that
suggests electromagnetic stirring parts that only extend along a portion of
the long sides of the mold would be contrary to the explicit teachings of
Fujisaki” (id.).
Appellants do not explain with any reasonable specificity why they
believe it “would be contrary to the explicit teachings of Fujisaki” (id.) to
provide Fujisaki’s stirrer with a length less than the length of the mold broad
side as taught by Kawakami. Moreover, Appellants do not directly
challenge the Examiner’s determination that such a provision would have
3
Appeal 2016-004222
Application 13/402,144
been made in order to obtain the benefits taught by Kawakami (Final Action
5, Ans. 2—3). For these reasons, the argument under consideration lacks
persuasive merit.
Appellants also state that the length teaching of Kawakami relates to
an inner face of the mold broad side and argue that such a teaching “does not
suggest the relationship between the length of the iron core and the length of
the broad side of the mold recited in claim 6” (Br. 9).
In response, the Examiner explains “[tjhere is nothing in the claim
language that precludes equating an inner broad side of the mold [as taught
by Kawakami] to a broad side of the mold [as recited in claim 6]” (Ans. 5).
Appellants do not challenge this explanation (i.e., no Reply Brief has been
filed). Under these circumstances, the above-noted argument is not
convincing.
Regarding the claim 6 limitation that an upper part of the iron core is
positioned above a surface of the meniscus at a distance up to 50 mm above
the meniscus surface, the Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have considered such positioning distance to be a result-
effective variable and would have found it obvious through routine
experimentation to discover an optimum range for this variable (Final
Action 5—6).
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s determination by arguing that
the applied references indicate “such variables are critical to the outcome of
casting processes . . . [and] are not simple matters of routine
experimentation” (Br. 11).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive for the reasons given by the
Examiner (Ans. 6—7). Moreover, we emphasize that Appellants do not
specifically address, and therefore do not show error in, the Examiner’s
4
Appeal 2016-004222
Application 13/402,144
reasons for determining there was a recognition in the prior art that the
positioning distance variable affects casting properties (Final Action 5—6).
In this regard, we further emphasize that “[a] recognition in the prior art that
a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-
effective.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir.
2012). Accordingly, Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that a distance value within the claim 6 range would have been
an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable through routine
experimentation.
Finally, Appellants state:
Kawakami... is a known process that includes arranging the
stirrer such that the upper edge of the stirrer [is] at least 200
mm away from [i.e., below] the meniscus . . . [which] only
creates a stirring down within the molten metal and not at the
meniscus . . . [and which is] a different arrangement than the
claimed invention that produces inferior results and does not
solve problems associated with molten metal at the meniscus.
(Br. 11).
Appellants do not explain why their statement is considered to
somehow undermine the Examiner’s finding that Fujisaki expressly teaches
stirring the molten metal to create an even flow at the meniscus (Final
Action 4 (citing col. 8,11. 41—47)) and the conclusion that it would have been
an obvious matter of routine optimization to position the stirrer at the
claimed distance from the meniscus surface thereby achieving the desired
5
Appeal 2016-004222
Application 13/402,144
even flow {id. at 5—6). For this reason alone, Appellants’ statement fails to
reveal error in the rejection of claim 6.2
In summary, Appellants do not show harmful error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6 for the reasons given by the Examiner and stated above.
The decision of the Examiner 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
2 In light of these circumstances, we need not address the Examiner’s
interpretation that claim 6 encompasses a distance at least 200 mm below the
meniscus as taught by Kawakami (Ans. 3—4). We emphasize, however, that
Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief disputing this claim interpretation.
6