Ex Parte Van Steenberge et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

13502566 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/502,566 11129/2012
53609 7590 03/27/2018
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nele Van Steenberge
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
509183 1198
EXAMINER
KOSHY, JOPHY STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NELE VAN STEENBERGE, MARC LEVEAUX,
LODE DUPREZ, and PHILIPPE GOUSSELOT
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-12. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to a steel sheet suitable for
enamelling. Spec. i-f 1. According to the Specification, the surface quality of
an applied enamel layer is influenced by the carbon level of a steel sheet. Id.
1 In this decision we refer to the Specification filed Apr. 18, 2012 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action dated June 3, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Nov. 7, 2016 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated Jan. 27, 2017
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Mar. 27, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Arcelormittal Investigacion
Y Desarrollo SL. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
i-f 2. A high carbon level at the surface may give rise to CO-gas bubble
formation, which appears as black spots and craters on the enamel surface.
Id. A sufficiently high carbon level in the bulk of the carbon sheet causes
cracks upon cold rolling that are capable of capturing hydrogen entering the
steel during the enameling process that would otherwise give rise to "fish-
scale" deformation of the enamel. Id. Therefore, superficial decarburization
only at the surface of the steel is desired. Id. i-f 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A rolled steel sheet suitable for enamelling, said sheet
having a carbon profile, defined by a gradient in the C-level
from a level Csurface at at least one surface of the sheet, to a
level Cbulk in the bulk of the sheet, Cbulk being higher than
Csurface,
and comprising:
Cbulk higher than 0 and lower than or equal to 0.08wt%,
Csurface between 0 and 0. 015 wt%,
Al between 0.012wt% and 0.07wt%,
Mn between 0.12wt% and 0.45wt%,
0 lower than 0.01 wt%
and optionally:
Cu between 0.025wt% and O.lwt%,
S between 0.008wt% and 0.04wt%,
Ca between 0.0005wt% and 0.005wt%,
the balance being Fe and incidental impurities,
and wherein the depth where the C-level reaches
(Cbulk+Csurface) /2, is higher than 75µm.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are on appeal:
1. Claims 1-12 over Matsukura 3; and
2. Claims 1-12 over Kojima. 4
Final Act. 4--9; App. Br. 4.
ISSUES
The dispositive issues on appeal are whether the Examiner erred in
determining that (1) because Cbulk and Csurface are recited as ranges in claim 1,
the average of Cbulk and Csurface ( ( Cbulk + Csurface)/2) would also be a range,
namely, 0--0.0475wt%., (2) because Matsukura's alloy has a substantially
similar composition and method of production as the claimed rolled steel
sheet, the property of the claimed depth of higher than 75µm for the average
of Cbulk and Csurface would be expected, and (3) because Kojima's alloy has a
substantially similar composition and method of production as the claimed
rolled steel sheet, the property of the claimed depth of higher than 75µm for
the average of Cbulk and Csurface would be expected.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F .2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
3 Matsukura et al., US 3,598,658, iss. Aug. 10, 1971 ("Matsukura").
4 Kojima, JP 06-279864 A, pub. Oct. 4, 1994 ("Kojima") (citations herein
are to the English language machine translation of record which Appellants
do not dispute).
3
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
The scope and content of the prior art
1. Matsukura is directed to a method of producing a non-oriented electrical
steel sheet that can be used for enameling having the following
composition:
a. 0.06--0.15wt% C content "at the time of tapping," which the
Examiner asserts is the value of the claimed Cbulk
b. 0.002---0.015wt% C content is the degree to which decarburizing
annealing is conducted, which the Examiner finds is the value of
the claimed Csurface
c. 0.01---0.08wt% Al
d. 0.10---0.25wt% Mn, and
e. Balance Fe and impurities.
Matsukura Abstr., 1 :28---6:57.
2. Kojima is directed to a method of producing a non-oriented electrical
steel sheet that can be used for enameling having the following
composition:
a. 0.01---0.2wt% C content of the Al killed steel sheet for enamel,
which the Examiner finds is the value of the claimed Cbulk
b. 0.005wt% or less C content resulting from decarburization
annealing of cold rolled sheet steel for enameling, which the
Examiner finds is the value of the claimed Csurface
c. 0.02---0.1 wt% Al
d. 0.10---0.5wt% Mn, and
e. Balance Fe and impurities.
Kojima i-fi-f l-55.
4
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
Differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
3. The claimed subject matter includes an oxygen content of less than or
equal to 0.01 wt%. Matsumura and Kojima, on the other hand, do not
add oxygen to the composition, however, Matsumura discloses that
molten steel has an oxygen content implying that oxygen is present at
impurity levels in steel. Final Act. 5, 7.
4. The claimed subject matter recites "the depth where the C-level reaches
(Cbulk+Csurface)/2, is higher than 75µm." Matsumura and Kojima, on the
other hand, do not explicitly disclose a C-level according to the recited
formula or the depth of the computed C-level. Final Act. 5, 7.
The level of skill in the art
5. Neither the Examiner nor Appellants have addressed the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art of steel sheets suitable for enamelling.
We will, therefore, consider the cited prior art as representative of the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[T]he absence of specific findings on the
level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error 'where the
prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is
not shown"' (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp.,
755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Secondary considerations
6. There is no evidence of record of secondary considerations of non-
obviousness for our consideration.
5
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 over each of Matsukura and
Kojima for the reasons stated on pages 2-9 of the Final Office Action and
pages 2-14 of the Answer. We need only address the rejections of claim 1
because Appellants rely upon the same arguments for the patentability of
claims 2-12 in this appeal. App. Br. 5-13.
Rejection over Matsukura
Appellants challenge the rejection of claim 1 over Matsukura by
arguing that the Examiner erred in interpreting "C-level reaches
(Cbulk+Csurface)/2" as "C-level is between 0 and 0.0475wt%." App. Br. 5.
According to Appellants, the claim term is a midpoint level and not simply a
number that falls within a range of values because it is defined by levels,
specifically the carbon concentration midpoint along the carbon gradient of
the enameling sheet that is defined by the particular C-levels Cbulk and
Csurface, which are endpoints on the carbon gradient of the enameling sheet.
App. Br. 5---6. Appellants present the following graph
to illustrate their argument regarding midpoint levels having varying depths.
·:-::e->'Qi %
i\<;t%) '!
{)._;:-._ ::::·;), ::J4.:f5" 1,_ -· ........ - ....... - •' ... - ,. ,, ,, -· .- -~~·~,~-:-, ;,.,:~-~-:.·:~~~{~:~~~:,,....~
-""' ,i"
_ ...... -· ..... ··,.··· _,,•
_,.. //'
'~·.:, .............. <: ......... 1/2 .~... l .·'' . . , ~ ' ... -. ,, ' -:./- ' ..... >~-:. . "•' ··.:;{"
,.··; ,." ' ./'
,.··
"/ .. __ .>-' >···
.. - .•'. •''
r.:,.··~·: '.· ~:G.L:l ~ r0~~-;~;~ _ _-,·:·:~---~, .. -·- ./ ~
~~~...:.~ ... ~ .. "'"'~'"'"'~~--~~~--~
. .::~-'!$ rs ;.·75 Ll~;">~t;{~!·::-n~
6
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
According to Appellants, the proffered graph shows that the
Examiner's interpretation is an oversimplification because the C-level at a
depth higher than 75µm is always higher than 0 and up to 0.0475wt%
regardless of the C-profile. Id. at 7. Appellants also contend that Matsukura
does not include enough information regarding the decarburization profile in
the steel sheet in order to conclude that the claimed midpoint depth
necessarily flows from Matsukura's disclosure. Id. at 10. Appellants do not
dispute that Fick' s Second Law applies to the diffusion of carbon during
decarburization and necessarily creates a carbon gradient through the steel
sheet. Id. However, Appellants assert that Fick's Second Law does not
resolve what shape the carbon profile of Matsukura will take. Id.
Appellants contend that Matsukura does not disclose a carbon level at the
surface, but only an average carbon value for the decarburization of the
entire sheet (0.002---0.015wt%) without any teaching regarding the depth of
decarburization. Id. Appellants additionally contend that the depth of the
carbon midpoint can vary widely depending on the conditions outlined in
Appellants' Table 2, including decarburization time, annealing temperature,
and the partial pressures of water vapour and hydrogen gas in the
decarburization atmosphere. Id. at 10-11.
The Examiner responds that claim 1 does not require the narrow
interpretation asserted by Appellants because Cbulk and Csurface are recited as
ranges in the claim, therefore the average of Cbulk and Csurface ((Cbulk+
Csurface)/2) would also be a range, namely, 0---0.0475wt%. Ans. 8. Regarding
Appellants' graph, the Examiner notes that the curves do not have any data
or mathematical formulas accompanying them to explain the basis for their
7
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
construction nor do the claims recite a mathematical expression or formula
depicting the curve. Id. at 8-9.
Regarding Matsumura, the Examiner responds that solving Fick's
second law of diffusion for an initial C level at a time of 0 at a thickness
greater than the surface (i.e., bulk) and C level at a time greater than 0
provides a gradient in the carbon level of the steel wherein the bulk is higher
than the surface. Id. at 9. The Examiner further responds that Matsukura
discloses that its steel starts with a carbon content of 0.06 to 0.15wt% and
undergoes decarburization annealing where the surface layer contains 0.002
to 0.015wt%. Id. at 10. As the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges
disclosed by the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to select the claimed composition since the prior art teaches
the same utility over the claimed range. Id. In addition, the Examiner finds
the property of the claimed depth of higher than 75µm would be expected of
Matsukura's alloy since the prior art has a substantially similar composition,
is produced using substantially similar methods, undergoes decarburization
annealing as in the instant steel, and is used for a substantially similar
process of enameling with no fish scaling issues. Id. The Examiner
provides a comparison of Kojima's alloy and production to Appellants'
Specification in support. Id. at 11-14.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants reassert that the Examiner's claim
interpretation is not correct because it is a numerical range rather than a
midpoint level. Reply Br. 2. Appellants also reassert that the curves in the
graph provided in the Appeal Brief illustrate that not all carbon profiles will
satisfy the requirement of claim 1 as the depth where the midpoint is reached
can be varied. Id. at 2-3. Regarding Matsukura disclosing or suggesting the
8
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
claim limitations, Appellants reassert that Fick' s second law does not
provide information on the shape of the carbon profile and the corresponding
depth where the midpoint value is reached because the shape "may vary
depending on specific decarbur[i]zation conditions." Id. at 4--5. Appellants
further contend that the Examiner's citation to Matsukura 6:31--45 does not
provide specific decarburization conditions that would inherently disclose
the claimed properties of Appellants' invention. Id. at 6. According to
Appellants, Table 2 in the Specification provides "ample illustration of the
fact that the midpoint depth depends on specific process conditions" that are
not disclosed by the cited prior art. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and Answer (Final Act. 4--6;
Ans. 8-14 ). We provide the following primarily for emphasis.
We interpret examined claims as broadly as is reasonable using
ordinary and accustomed term meanings, so as to be consistent with the
specification, In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002), while
"taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in
applicant's specification," In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997), and without reading limitations from embodiments described in the
specification into claims that recite broader language than the embodiment,
In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Regarding the claim
term "wherein the depth where the C-level reaches (Cbulk+Csurface) /2, is
higher than 75µm," it is not disputed that the expression "(Cbulk+Csurface) 12"
is the average of the carbon content at the surface and in the bulk of a steel
sheet. The Specification defines Csurface as "the minimum value of the C-
9
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
profile" (Spec. i-f 23) and Cbulk as equal to the initial C-level where
decarburization has not taken place over the entire thickness of the sheet
(Spec. i-f 24). Therefore, the Examiner's interpretation of "(Cbulk+Csurface) /2"
being defined by a range as computed by the recited ranges for Cbulk and
Csurface is reasonable and consistent with the Specification. As discussed
further below, the preponderance of the evidence in this record supports the
Examiner's findings that Matsukura's steel sheets fall within the C-level
midpoint range required by claim 1 and that the depth at the midpoint so
calculated for Matsukura's steel sheets would be expected to be greater than
75µm.
Appellants' arguments over the prior art are not persuasive because
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding (Ans. 10) that Matsukura
discloses an initial carbon content of 0.06--0.15wt% which provides a range
for Cbulk· Appellants do not adequately rebut the Examiner's finding (Ans.
10) that Matsukura' s disclosure that the steel sheet undergoes
decarburization annealing to produce a carbon content of 0.002---0.015wt%
means that the carbon content level at the surface layer, i.e., Csurface, is
0.002---0.015wt% and within the claimed range. Appellants' assertion that
Matsukura's disclosure of 0.002---0.015wt% refers to an average rather than
the carbon content at the surface level (App. Br. 10) is not persuasive
because Appellants do not dispute that Fick' s law of diffusion means that
decarburization will necessarily create a carbon gradient through the steel
sheet (Reply Br. 4). Appellants only dispute that the general shape of the
diffusion curve can shift in terms of where the midpoint of the C-level
occurs relative to the depth of the steel sheet suitable for enameling (id.).
Thus, Appellants do not adequately explain why Matsukura's disclosed
10
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
carbon content of 0.002---0.015wt% after decarburization annealing does not
disclose or suggest a carbon content at the surface layer that meets the
claimed range of "between 0 and 0.015wt%."
Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 10) that the endpoints of the
carbon concentration is information relevant to the decarburization profile of
Matsukura. Appellants also do not dispute that Matsukura discloses
conditions for decarburization (id.), only that Matsukura does not disclose at
column 6, lines 31--45, specific conditions of decarburization (Reply Br. 6).
Indeed, Matsukura's Example 1 (cited by the Examiner at Final Act. 4 and
Ans. 10) describes the decarburizing annealing as occurring in an open-coil
annealing furnace at a temperature of 750QC for 5 hours. Matsukura 6:70-
73. The Examiner's citation to Matsukura column 6, lines 31--45 in
particular (Ans. 13) was to show that it is within the skill of a skilled artisan
to find suitable combinations of decarburizing time and anneal temperature
based on the examples provided as Matsukura teaches the carbon content
range to achieve with decarburization in the same manner as paragraph 41 of
Appellants' Specification. Accordingly, Appellants merely implies but does
not argue with sufficient detail that Matsukura lacks details of its
decarburization annealing process that differentiates it from Appellants'
process.
Appellants' argument that Table 2 of the Specification demonstrates
that the carbon midpoint can vary with a variety of factors and that the shape
of the carbon profile will change depending on the depth of the midpoint (id.
at 5) does not adequately address the Examiner's finding (Ans. 8) that
Appellants provide no mathematical formulas or data that explains the
construction of carbon profile curves. Indeed, Table 2 shows that good
11
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
enameling was achieved consistently where the carbon content at the surface
was low rather than where the depth was above 7 5 µm. The Specification
acknowledges that it was known to decarburize steel only in a layer at the
surface of the steel for the purpose of good enameling. Spec. i-f 3. The
Specification further ascribes the bad enameling samples reported to "a C
level at the surface which is too high." Id. i-f 48. Consequently, Appellants'
arguments based on change in the shape of the carbon profile and change
depending on the depth of the midpoint have no evidentiary basis to support
them. As such, Appellants' graphs present merely attorney argument, which
is not a substitute for factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re
Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As the Examiner finds (Final Act. 4--6), because Matsukura discloses
the same composition, including ranges for Cbulk and Csurface that encompass
those claimed, the C-level of (Cbulk+Csurface)/2 recited in claim 1 is also met
by Matsukura and would be expected also to have the property of a depth
higher than 75µm because the composition and method of production are
substantially similar. See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391(CCPA1963)
("a compound and all of its properties are inseparable"); Perricone v.
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("If
Pereira discloses the very same methods, then the particular benefits must
naturally flow from those methods even if not recognized as benefits at the
time of Pereira's disclosure."). To the extent that Appellants discovered that
decarburization affects the midpoint or average carbon content between the
surface and the bulk by some unspecified formula or relationship, the same
effect would necessarily occur in the prior art method because Appellants'
12
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
decarburization process by which the claimed rolled steel sheet is produced
is indistinguishable from the carbonization disclosed in the prior art based on
the cited record in this appeal. Cf MEHL/Biophile Int 'l Corp. v. Milgraum,
192 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Where, as here, the result is a
necessary consequence of what was deliberately intended [by the prior art],
it is of no import that the [prior art]' s authors did not appreciate the
results.").
In sum, Appellants have not provided enough information to rebut the
Examiner's finding that the prior art has a substantially similar composition,
is produced using substantially similar methods, undergoes decarburization
annealing as in the instant steel, and is used for a substantially similar
process of enameling with no fish scaling issues. In the absence of a more
detailed explanation, we are not convinced of error on the part of the
Examiner in concluding the claimed invention would have been obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons provided in the Final
Office Action and Answer, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matsukura.
Rejection over Kojima
Appellants similarly challenge the rejection of claim 1 over Kojima by
arguing that the Examiner has not demonstrated how Kojima teaches or
suggests the limitation of "the depth where the C-level reaches
(Cbulk+Csurface)/2, is higher than 75µm." App. Br. 12. According to
Appellants, the Examiner's finding that Kojima teaches that its steel starts
with a carbon content of 0.1 to 0.2wt% and undergoes decarburization
13
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
annealing where the carbon content at the surface layer contains 0.005wt%
or less is an assumption made by the Examiner because Kojima refers to the
sheet rather than the surface having a carbon content of 0.005wt% or less.
Id. Appellants additionally argue "there is simply not enough information in
Kojima to determine that the claimed carbon profile would necessarily
flow." Id. at 13. In view of these defects, Appellants contend that the
Examiner has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1.
Id. at 12-13.
The Examiner responds that Kojima's alloy would be expected to
have the claimed properties because it has a substantially similar
composition, is produced using substantially similar methods, undergoes
decarburization annealing as in Appellants' steel, and is used for
substantially the same process of enameling like Appellants' steel. Ans. 11.
The Examiner provides a comparison of Kojima's alloy and production to
Appellants' Specification in support. Id. at 11-14.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants assert that paragraph 38 of Kojima
cited by the Examiner "does not provide any further disclosure of specific
decarburization conditions that would inherently disclose the claimed
properties." Reply Br. 6. Appellants also assert that even if the midpoint of
the profile is at 1.25% or 3.75% of the total thickness of Kojima's steel, it
has no relevance to the actual depth at which this midpoint is reached. Id.
Regarding the lack of detail to attain the alleged critical depth greater than
75 microns, Appellants reassert that the multiple examples in Table 2 of
process conditions illustrate that the midpoint depth depends on specific
process conditions not disclosed in the cited prior art. Id. at 6-7.
14
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for the reasons stated
by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and Answer (Final Act. 7-9;
Ans. 10-14 ). We provide the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because Appellants do not
adequately rebut the Examiner's finding (Ans. 11-14) that Kojima's steel is
produced using substantially the same process as Appellants' steel, including
decarburization annealing. Appellants' do not address the process
conditions cited by the Examiner in Kojima's paragraphs 33, 34, and 36 in
addition to the description in paragraph 3 8 that describes the process used to
produce Kojima's working example 1. The Examiner has provided the
record with a preponderance of evidence including commonalities shared by
the methods disclosed in Kojima and Appellants' Specification which
justifies requiring Appellants to prove that Kojima's product does not
necessarily or inherently possess the claimed characteristic of the midpoint
C-level occurring at a depth greater than 75µm. See In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) ("[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that
the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the
characteristics of his claimed product. ... Whether the rejection is based on
'inherency' under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on 'prima facie obviousness' under 35
U.S.C. § 103,jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its
fairness is evidenced by the PTO' s inability to manufacture products or to
obtain and compare prior art products." (footnote omitted)). No such proof
has been provided by Appellants.
Appellants also do not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would
understand Kojima's disclosure of 0.005wt% or less to refer to a portion of
Kojima's steel sheet other than the surface (App. Br. 12). Appellants do not
15
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
dispute that Fick's law of diffusion means that decarburization will
necessarily create a carbon gradient through the steel sheet (Reply Br. 4 ).
Appellants only dispute the shape of the diffusion curve being the same as
the curve exhibited by the claimed steel sheet suitable for enameling to
produce the claimed C-level midpoint at a depth greater than 75µm (id.). In
each of Appellants' exemplary curves, the surface C-level is the lowest C-
level. Therefore, Appellants' assertion that Kojima's C-level after annealing
of 0.0005wt% or less does not suggest the lowest C-level portion of the
curve, i.e., Csurface, is not credible.
In sum, Appellants have not provided enough information to rebut the
Examiner's finding that the prior art has a substantially similar composition,
is produced using substantially similar methods, undergoes decarburization
annealing as in the instant steel, and is used for a substantially similar
process of enameling with no fish scaling issues. In the absence of a more
detailed explanation, we are not convinced of error on the part of the
Examiner in concluding the claimed invention would have been obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons provided in the Final
Office Action and Answer, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kojima.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
16
Appeal2017-006940
Application 13/502,566
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
17