Ex Parte Sariego et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2018

13690642 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2018)

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.
13/690,642 11/30/2012 Kenneth Charles Sariego SP12-349 8412
22928 7590 02/13/2018
TORNTNO TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
HAUTH, GALEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2018 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):
u sdocket @ corning .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH CHARLES SARIEGO and
JOEL ANDREW SCHULTES
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicants (hereinafter “Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—9,
11,21, and 22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Coming Incorporated”
(Appeal Brief filed June 27, 2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 2).
2 Appeal Br. 8—20; Reply Brief filed January 20, 2017, hereinafter “Reply
Br.,” 2—5; Final Office Action entered December 3, 2015, hereinafter “Final
Act.,” 3—7; Examiner’s Answer entered November 21, 2016, hereinafter
“Ans.,” 2-8.
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for extruding a
ceramic precursor batch material, wherein the method uses temperature
control (Specification filed November 30, 2012, hereinafter “Spec.,” 11).
Figure 1 A, which is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced
as follows:
Figure 1A above depicts an exemplary extrusion system 10 and a method for
its operation in accordance with the Appellants’ disclosure, wherein the
method comprises: supplying a ceramic batch material 22 into an extruder
30’s barrel 31 via an input funnel 34; pushing the ceramic material 22
through a cavity 26 towards an extrusion die 80 by rotating extrusion screws
36; and extruding an extrudate 90 out of an output end 74 (Spec. Tflf 27—30).
As shown in Figure 1 A, the system 10 is provided with a temperature­
sensing unit 100, which is connected to a temperature control system 40 and
is provided with multiple temperature sensors 102 {id. 132). The Appellants
further describe a plurality of temperature sensors 152 (not shown in Figure
2
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
1 A) that are azimuthally arranged adjacent heating elements 150 (not shown
in Fig. 1A) in the extruder 30’s front section 52 (id. 133; Fig. 2A).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 21), with key limitations emphasized and some
line spacing added, as follows:
1. A method of controlling a shape of an extrudate
made of ceramic batch material extruded from an extrusion die
of an extruder, comprising:
flowing the ceramic batch material through an extruder
cavity defined by an inner surface of a barrel wall immediately
adjacent the extrusion die, wherein the batch material has a
temperature and wherein the cavity has a central axis and defines
a perimeter of the ceramic batch material;
locally adjusting the temperature of the ceramic batch
material that resides within the extruder cavity through the batch
material perimeter at multiple locations, to form a temperature-
adjusted ceramic batch material;
measuring the temperature of the barrel wall, wherein
the local measuring is performed at multiple locations around
the perimeter of the ceramic batch material within the extruder
cavity;
extruding the temperature-adjusted ceramic batch material
through an output end of the extrusion die to form the extrudate,
with the extrudate having an outer surface;
measuring temperatures of the extrudate at the output
end of the extrusion die at multiple outer surface locations of
the extrudate having different azimuthal positions; and
controlling the local adjusting of the temperature of the
ceramic batch material based on the measured temperatures of
the barrel wall and the measured temperatures of the extrudate at
the output end of the die to control the shape of the extrudate.
3
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains two rejections under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
A. Claims 1—6, 9, 11,21, and 22 as unpatentable over Yamaguchi
et al.3 (hereinafter “Yamaguchi”) in view of Bessemer et al.4
(hereinafter “Bessemer”) and Togawa et al.5 (hereinafter
“Togawa”); and
B. Claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable over these same prior art
references further in view of two additional references.
(Ans. 2—6; Final Act. 3—7.)
III. DISCUSSION
Rejection A. The Appellants argue the claims together, focusing only
on claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9-19). Therefore, we confine our discussion to
claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). As provided by this rule, claims 2—6, 9, 11,21, and 22
stand or fall with claim 1.
1. The Examiner’s Position
The Examiner finds that Yamaguchi describes a method including
every limitation recited in claim 1, except for the disputed limitations
highlighted in reproduced claim 1 above (Ans. 2—3). Regarding the
extrudate temperature measurement limitations, the Examiner finds that
Yamaguchi teaches a temperature control system that uses non-contact
temperature sensors {id. at 2), but acknowledges that the reference “does not
3 US 2002/0167102 Al, published November 14, 2002.
4 US 6,620,354 Bl, issued September 16, 2003.
5 US 4,480,981, issued November 6, 1984.
4
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
teach measuring the temperature of the extrudate at multiple outer surface
locations at different locations around the cross section of the extrudate” {id.
at 3). The Examiner finds, however, that Bessemer teaches using non-
contact temperature sensors located at different positions around a cross-
section of an extrudate to provide feedback to a controller in order to allow
precise control of each cooling circuit used in an extrusion process {id.).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that the person of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined Yamaguchi and Bessemer in the
manner claimed by the Appellants {id.).
Regarding the barrel wall temperature measurement limitations, the
Examiner finds that “Yamaguchi recognizes the importance of [controlling]
the extruder barrel temperature profile (|[|] 0069-0070) but does not go into
detail with regards to the sensors used by the controller[,] prompting one of
ordinary skill to look to related art” {id. at 7—8). The Examiner finds that
Togawa teaches using a plurality of temperature sensors around the
perimeter of an extruder barrel’s cross-section and along multiple points
throughout the barrel’s length in order to improve measurement and control
of the temperature of material being conveyed within the extruder barrel {id.
at 3—4). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have implemented Togawa’s improved barrel
temperature control system in Yamaguchi “because both relate to the
extrusion of materials under controlled temperature environments presenting
a reasonable expectation of success, and the system of Togawa teaches
improved process control of the internal temperature of the extruder” {id. at
4).
5
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
2. The Appellants ’ Contentions
With respect to the extrudate temperature measurement limitations,
the Appellants contend that the extrusion system described in the
Specification (| 32) and Drawings (Fig. 1 A) includes a temperature-sensing
unit 100 arranged adjacent an extruder output section 72 at output end 74
with no intervening elements disposed between the temperature sensing unit
100 and output end 74 (Appeal Br. 11—12). The Appellants argue that, by
contrast, Bessemer’s temperature sensors 143—145 “cannot be reasonably
interpreted as being capable of ‘measuring temperatures of the extrudate at
the output end of the extrusion die,’ as recited by independent claim 1” {id.
at 12). Specifically, the Appellants urge that Bessemer’s temperature
sensors 143—145 are arranged in air gaps 77 between calibrators 140 {id. at
13). According to the Appellants, “because Bessemer teaches using the
temperature sensors to determine if the extrudate has properly cooled at the
blade, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
move the temperature sensors of Bessemer to be at the exit of the extruder as
taught by Yamaguchi” (id. at 14).
Regarding the barrel temperature measurement limitations, the
Appellants contend that “none of the cited references, alone or in
combination, teach controlling the temperature based on both the measured
temperatures of the barrel wall and the measured temperatures of the
extrudate at the output end of the die” (id. at 15). The Appellants contend
that “[although Yamaguchi discloses measuring the temperature of the
extrudate as it exits the mold and Togawa teaches measuring the temperature
of molten resin in a cylinder,” none of the references disclose or suggest the
disputed limitations (id. at 16). The Appellants further argue that the person
6
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Yamaguchi, which
takes account of a temperature difference between the extrudate’s outer
peripheral portion and inner peripheral portion as it exits the mold, with
Togawa’s technique for measuring temperature because “[t]he two
temperature measuring and control systems are not compatible with one
another” {id. at 18).
3. Analysis
The Appellants’ arguments fail to reveal any reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Yamaguchi describes a method for producing a ceramic molding
having a desired shape using a screw-type extruder with controlled heating
or cooling to improve the ceramic molding’s shape (Yamaguchi, || 15—16).
Yamaguchi discloses an embodiment in Figure 9, as follows:
Fig.9
Yamaguchi’s Figure 9 above depicts an apparatus 1 including, inter alia,
two molding thermometers 561 and 562 for measuring “the temperature of
the outer peripheral surface of the as-extruded ceramic molding 8 extruded
from the mold 4” and “the temperature of the cut center of the extruded
7
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
ceramic molding 8,” respectively {id. 197). Yamaguchi teaches that these
thermometers 561, 562 are connected to a heat medium temperature
instruction device 56 to control the temperature using temperature controller
52 (not shown) for heating or cooling heat medium 7 and to help shape the
ceramic molding {id. H 56, 98—99, 105). Yamaguchi also teaches the
importance of controlling the ceramic material’s temperature within the
extruder screw chamber from being elevated by heat of friction generated
between the ceramic material and the extrusion screw {id. H 69-70).
Yamaguchi’s method differs from claim 1 ’s subject matter in two
respects. First, although Yamaguchi teaches the importance of controlling
the ceramic material’s temperature within the screw chamber {id.), it does
not teach measuring the temperatures of the barrel wall at multiple locations
around the ceramic material’s perimeter within the extruder cavity. Second,
although Yamaguchi teaches measuring “the temperature of the outer
peripheral surface of the as-extruded ceramic molding 8 extruded from the
mold 4” {id. 197), it does not teach “measuring [the] temperatures of the
extrudate at the output end of the extrusion die at multiple outer surface
locations of the extrudate having different azimuthal positions,” as recited in
claim 1. We conclude, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have found these differences obvious in view of the prior art
teachings as a whole.
We start with the second difference (i.e., the limitation “measuring
temperatures of the extrudate at the output end of the extrusion die at
multiple outer surface locations of the extrudate having different azimuthal
positions” in claim 1). As we found above, Yamaguchi explicitly teaches
using thermocouple 561 to measure “the temperature of the outer peripheral
8
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
surface of the as-extruded ceramic molding 8 extruded from the mold 4”
(Yamaguchi, 197). We find that, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the limitation at issue, Yamaguchi discloses measuring the
extrudate temperature “at the output end of the extrusion die” as required by
claim 1. Although the Appellants argue that the Specification (| 32) and the
Drawings (Figure 1 A) show a temperature sensing unit arranged at the
output end “with no intervening elements disposed therebetween” (Appeal
Br. 12), the claim recites no such requirement.
Even if Yamaguchi cannot be considered as disclosing measuring the
extrudate temperature at the extruder die’s output end, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to measure the temperature at
precisely the die’s output end because the reference places no particular
limitation on the exact location for measuring the extrudate’s surface
temperature. Indeed, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
prompted to take temperature measurements at or close to the die outlet in
order to supplement any temperature monitoring/control system
implemented for Yamaguchi’s extruder cylinder (as discussed further
below).
Regarding measuring extrudate temperatures at different azimuthal
positions, Bessemer discloses the concept of providing multiple temperature
sensors azimuthally to enhance temperature control in a uniform manner,
especially for complex, multi-sided extrudates (Bessemer, col. 7,11. 32—63;
Fig. 4). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have provided
multiple temperature sensors at different azimuthal positions, as shown in
Bessemer, to measure Yamaguchi’s extrudate temperature at the die outlet
with the reasonable expectation of achieving enhanced, uniform temperature
9
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
control. The fact that Bessemer teaches providing temperature sensors
between air gaps does not negate an obviousness conclusion because,
consistent with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 6—7), obviousness must be
analyzed based on the collective teachings of the prior art references. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (nonobviousness cannot be
established merely by attacking references individually where the rejection
is based on the collective teachings of multiple prior art references).
Next, we address the first difference between Yamaguchi and claim
1 ’s subject matter (i.e., measuring extruder barrel wall temperatures at
multiple points around the ceramic material’s perimeter within the extruder
cavity). Togawa teaches a resin extrusion system in which thermocouples
4a, 4b, and 4c are mounted into holes 3a—3c in an extruder’s cylinder 2 in
order to obtain the temperature profiles of the cylinder 2 at different regions
Ci—C4 (Togawa, col. 5,1. 62—col. 6,1. 23; Fig. 5). According to Togawa, the
resin temperature within the extruder’s
cylinder can be accurately estimated so as to be always controlled
to an optimum temperature, whereby the increase of amount of
extrudate, the reduction of scorching of the resin, the saving of
the energy and the prevention of wear of temperature detecting
elements are achieved, so that the extruder can be continuously
operated for a long period of time.
(Id. at col. 4,11. 32-32).
Given these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been prompted to implement Togawa’s improved temperature measurement
and control system in Yamaguchi’s extrusion method for ceramic materials
with a reasonable expectation of obtaining the same or similar improvements
disclosed in Togawa for resin extrusion. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device,
10
Appeal 2017-004522
Application 13/690,642
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
The Appellants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have combined Yamaguchi and Togawa because these references
are incompatible is without merit. We have not been directed to any factual
basis for concluding that the advantages disclosed in Togawa cannot be
attained by supplementing Yamaguchi’s temperature control system with
Togawa’s improved system.
For these reasons, we uphold Rejection A.
Rejection B. For claims 7 and 8, the Appellants rely on the same
arguments offered in support of claim 1, adding only that the additional
references do not cure the alleged “deficiencies” in Yamaguchi, Bessemer,
and Togawa. Because we perceive no deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1, we also sustain Rejection B.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A and B are sustained. Therefore, the Examiner’s final
decision to reject claims 1—9, 11,21, and 22 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
11