14122664 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

Ex Parte Soinila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 2016

14122664 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

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. 14/122,664 02/19/2014 Erno Soinila 9331.0003 3173 152 7590 06/23/2016 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP 601 SW Second Avenue Suite 1600 PORTLAND, OR 97204-3157 EXAMINER YOON, KEVIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EMO SOINILA, TUOMAS PIHAJAMAKI, SVEN BOSSUYT, and HANNU HANNINEN __________ Appeal 2016-002899 Application 14/122,664 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-002899 Application 14/122,664 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were heard in this appeal on June 7, 2016. We AFFIRM. Appellants’ invention is directed to a combined arc melting and tilt casting apparatus used for the manufacture of bulk metallic glass materials (Spec. 1:3-4). An allegedly improved feature of the presently claimed invention is that the hearth (7) and mold (2) are connected together and moveable as a single unit (9) in the vacuum chamber and out from the vacuum chamber (Spec. 6:10-13; Fig. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An arc melting and tilt casting apparatus having a casing provided with a chamber for housing a hearth having a melting trough and a pouring nozzle, an arc-melting electrode passing through the casing in the chamber, a mold having a melt receiving orifice, the hearth and mold being connected together and formed to cause a melt to flow from the melting trough, when tilted, via the nozzle and through the mold orifice, characterized in that the chamber is a vacuum chamber provided with sample manipulator arm, the apparatus being provided with a seal for maintaining a vacuum selectively created in the chamber; that the hearth and mold are moveable as a single unit into the vacuum chamber and out from the chamber; and that the whole apparatus is capable of being tilted, and further characterized in that the casing has an opening and the hearth and mold unit is moveable in the vacuum chamber as a single unit from below through the opening. Appellants appeal the following rejections1: 1. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soinila (Soinila et al., Bulk metallic glass tube 1 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 5 as failing to comply with the written description requirement (Ans. 5). Appeal 2016-002899 Application 14/122,664 3 casting, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 509s (2011) S210 S213) in view of Gagliano (US 5,634,514 issued Jun. 3, 1997) and Fan (CN 101816915A published Sep. 1, 2010 with English language abstract). 2. Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soinila in view of Gagliano, Fan, and Inoue (JP 2009-68101A published Apr. 2, 2009). Appellants argue claim 1 only (App. Br. 6-10). The rejection of dependent claims 2-6 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established that Soinila teaches a “hearth and mold being connected together” and that a “casing has an opening and the hearth and mold unit is moveable in the vacuum chamber as a single unit from below through the opening” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7-8). The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are located on pages 3 to 5 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds that Soinila teaches that the hearth and mold are connected to each other (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that Soinila’s connected hearth and mold are capable of movement as a single unit into and out of the vacuum chamber (Final Act. 4; Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that Soinila does not teach where the opening for providing Appeal 2016-002899 Application 14/122,664 4 access to the interior of the vacuum chamber is located2 (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Gagliano teaches an opening on the side of the vacuum chamber (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that there are limited number of possible locations for an opening in the chamber such that it would have been obvious in view of Gagliano, Fan and Soinila to have the opening in the bottom side of the casing for ease of manufacturing, and to provide an optimum place for the opening (Final Act. 5). Gagliano teaches an embodiment shown in Figure 2 in which a vertically aligned chamber is provided with a bottom door 81 (Gagliano col. 5, ll. 15-26). Gagliano teaches that the when the door 81 is fully opened as shown in Figure 2, it is possible to easily access a pan located on it in order to load items on it (Gagliano col. 5, ll. 20-22). After loading the prosthesis in Gagliano’s case, on the door 81, jacks 77 and 78 are activated to close the door and raise the prosthesis into the chamber for treatment (Gagliano col. 5, ll. 22-26). In view of Gagliano’s teachings, the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. Moreover, this conclusion and the evidence proffered by the Examiner in support thereof are reinforced by Gagliano’s Figure 2 disclosure discussed above. Soinila’s vacuum 2 The Examiner finds that Soinila differs from the claimed subject matter in that it does not recite an arc electrode passing through the casing and a manipulator arm in the casing (Final Act. 4). The Examiner relies on Gagliano to teach inserting an arc electrode through the casing and Fan to teach using a manipulator arm within a vacuum casing (Final Act. 4-5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to insert Soinila’s arc electrode through the casing as in Gagliano and provide a manipulator arm as in Fan as a well-known configuration in the tilting vacuum chamber and to facilitate the melting of alloy (Final Act. 5). Appellants do not contest these findings or conclusions of the Examiner (App. Br. 7-10). Appeal 2016-002899 Application 14/122,664 5 chamber must have an opening in order provide access to the interior of the chamber. Gagliano teaches that placing the opening in the bottom provides easy access and loading of materials into the chamber. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide Soinila’s casing with a bottom access door that provides easy access to the interior of the chamber and permits easy loading of items for insertion into the chamber as taught by Gagliano. As found by the Examiner and not contested by Appellants, Soinila’s hearth and mold are connected to each other as shown in Figure 3 of Soinila (Final Act. 4; Reply Br. 4). The Examiner finds that Soinila’s hearth and mold must be connected in order to transfer the molten metal from the hearth to the mold upon tilting the apparatus without spilling (Ans. 6). Therefore, the combined teachings of the art would have suggested modifying Soinila to have a door in the bottom of the chamber as taught by Gagliano to provide easy loading of items to be supplied to the vacuum chamber. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have positioned Soinila’s hearth and mold on the bottom door in the desired connected and touching fashion as shown in Figure 3 of Soinila. The connected and touching hearth and mold would then have been loaded into the vacuum chamber as the door is closed using the jacks as taught by Gagliano. In other words, Soinila’s chamber as modified by Gagliano would have been capable of inserting and removing the connected and touching hearth and mold assembly as a single unit from the Soinila’s chamber as found by the Examiner (Ans. 6). Although Appellants contend that connection requires something more than mere contact, they do not direct us to a definition of connection that would preclude the touching or abutting contact as shown in Soinila’s Appeal 2016-002899 Application 14/122,664 6 Figure 3 (Reply Br. 4 n. 2). Appellants attach to the Reply Brief an email from Sven Bossuyt, a co-inventor named on the present application and co- author of the Soinila reference, as evidence that the hearth and mold shown in Soinila’s Figure 3 are not connected together. Appellants do not direct us to where the Bossuyt email is of record. Because the Bossuyt email is presented for the first time in the record as an attachment to the Reply Brief, we shall not consider such untimely evidence. See 37 CFR 41.41 (b)(1), (2) (2013).3 We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Soinila in view of Gagliano and Fan and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over Soinila in view of Gagliano, Fan and Inoue. DECISION The Examiner’s decision 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)(1). ORDER AFFIRMED 3 In any event, the contents of the email would be entitled to little or no probative weight as it is not in the form of a sworn declaration supported by facts.