Ex Parte Rose et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 10, 2012

10557190 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LUTZ ROSE and JOHANN REICHEL
____________

Appeal 2010-010476
Application 10/557,190
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 5-8, 10, and 11 as
unpatentable over Funk (US 3,807,986, issued Apr. 30, 1974) in view of
Guillot (US 6,228,137 B1, issued May 8, 2001) and of claim 9 as
unpatentable over these references and further in view of Masucci (EP
0655508 A1, pub. May 31, 1995). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-010476
Application 10/557,190

2
Appellants claim a method for producing foamed slag (7) on high-
chromium steel melts (6) in an electric arc furnace (1) wherein preforms (8)
comprising a mixture of metal oxide and carbon are introduced into the
furnace to cause the slag to foam and
wherein density of the preforms (8) is adjusted by
compression pressure and a type and quantity of an added
iron carrier so that the preforms are heavier than the slag (7)
but lighter than the metal melt (6) and float in the slag near a
phase boundary between the metal melt (6) and the slag (7)

(claim 1; Fig. 1).
Representative claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as
follows:
1. Method for producing foamed slag (7) on high-chromium steel melts
(6) in an electric arc furnace (1), wherein a mixture of a metal oxide and
carbon is introduced into the furnace (1), the metal oxide is reduced by the
carbon in the slag (7), and the resulting gases form bubbles in the slag,
which thus cause the slag to foam, wherein the mixture of metal oxide and
carbon is introduced into the furnace as compressed preforms (8) or
preforms (8) provided with a binder, wherein density of the preforms (8) is
adjusted by compression pressure and a type and quantity of an added iron
carrier so that the preforms are heavier than the slag (7) but lighter than the
metal melt (6) and float in the slag near a phase boundary between the metal
melt (6) and the slag (7).

Appellants' arguments are directed to claim 1 only (Br. 8-10). As a
consequence, dependent claims 5-11 will stand or fall with independent
claim 1.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis.

Appeal 2010-010476
Application 10/557,190

3
Appellants acknowledge that Funk discloses a combination of iron
and iron oxide briquette (Br. 8) but argue that there is no teaching or
suggestion of "preforms having a density adjusted by pressure and a type
and quantity of an added iron carrier so that the preforms are heavier than
the slag but lighter than the metal melt, as in the presently claimed
invention" (id. at para. bridging 8-9).
This argument is unpersuasive.
As correctly indicated by the Examiner (Ans. para. bridging 7-8),
Funk teaches that the briquettes are formed under pressure using rollers (col.
9, ll. 27-47) and are "formulated according to planned chemical and physical
consistencies [and] introduced by gravity through the slag layer onto, or into,
the molten metal bath of an electric arc furnace" (Abst.). This teaching of
introducing briquettes by gravity through the slag layer onto the molten
metal bath supports the Examiner's determination that Funk teaches or
would have suggested briquettes which are heavier than the slag but lighter
than the metal melt. Funk also teaches effective briquette densities (e.g., 5.5
g/cc) for achieving such desiderata (id.).
We fully share the Examiner's conclusion that these teachings of Funk
would have suggested briquettes having a density adjusted by pressure as
well as type and quantity of added iron carrier so as to be heavier than the
slag but lighter than the metal melt as required by claim 1. It follows that
substantial evidence supports the Examiner's obviousness conclusion
regarding representative claim 1.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

Appeal 2010-010476
Application 10/557,190

4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl