Ex Parte Wans et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

13499830 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/499,830 09/12/2012 Jochen Wans
20311 7590 10/24/2018
LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP
30 BROAD STREET
21st FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10004
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
HM-946 8488
EXAMINER
YOON, KEVIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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):
info@lmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOCHEN WANS, DIETER ROSENTHAL,
JOCHEN SCHLUTER, CHRISTIAN GEERKENS,
and JORG BAUSCH
Appeal2017-009775
Application 13/499,830
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 14 and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a horizontal steel strip casting device. Claim 14
is illustrative:
14. A horizontal strip casting device for casting steel
strip with a chromium content of more than 15 percent by
weight, the horizontal strip casting device comprising: a
melting furnace; a casting ladle; and a transport band for
Appeal2017-009775
Application 13/499,830
receiving and cooling liquid steel flowing out of the casting
ladle, wherein the transport band has indentations configured to
form respective desired cast pieces within the steel strip.
Narasimhan
Heinemann
Asari (abstract)
Pleschiutschnigg
( as translated)
The References
us 4,285,386
us 4,776,383
JP 63-90339 A
DE 198 52 275 Al
The Re} ections
Aug. 25, 1981
Oct. 11, 1988
Apr. 21, 1988
May 25, 2000
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 14 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) over Narasimhan, claims 14, 16, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Pleschiutschnigg in view of Narasimhan, claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Narasimhan in view of Asari and over
Pleschiutschnigg in view of Narasimhan and Asari, and claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Narasimhan in view of Heinemann and over
Pleschiutschnigg in view of Narasimhan and Heinemann.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
The Appellants state that claims 16-19 stand or fall with claim 14,
which is the sole independent claim (App. Br. 10). We therefore limit our
discussion to claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Narasimhan discloses a horizontal metal strip casting device
comprising an endless belt chill body (13) having raised (13a) or lowered
domains corresponding in shape to a desired product shape (Abstract; col. 1,
11. 10-15, 26-31, 35-37, 46-49; col. 6, 11. 15-19, 38--41; Figs. 2, 3).
The Appellants argue that Narasimhan' s domains are raised domains,
not indentations, and that, therefore, the Appellants' claimed device is not
2
Appeal2017-009775
Application 13/499,830
anticipated by Narasimhan and would not have been prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art over Pleschiutschnigg in view of Narasimhan
(App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2).
As pointed out above, Narasimhan's domains are not limited to raised
domains but, rather, can be lowered domains, i.e., indentations.
The Appellants assert that "[t]he lowered domains/indentations of
Narasimhan might actually conform to a portion of the outline of a desired
defined shape, however each lowered domain is not configured to form a
respective desired cast piece" (Reply Br. 2).
Narasimhan discloses that the lowered domains correspond in outline
to the desired product shape, not to a portion of the desired product shape
(Abstract; col. 1, 11. 12-13, 30-31, 48--49; col. 6, 11. 38--41).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejections.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Narasimhan, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 14, 16,
and 18 over Pleschiutschnigg in view of Narasimhan, claim 17 over
Narasimhan in view of Asari and over Pleschiutschnigg in view of
Narasimhan and Asari, and claim 19 over Narasimhan in view of
Heinemann and over Pleschiutschnigg in view of Narasimhan and
Heinemann are affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
3