10472422 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2012)

Ex Parte Webj¿rn

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 17, 2012

10472422 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2012)

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. 10/472,422 09/19/2003 Mats WebjÂ¿rn P/4447-2 9232 2352 7590 01/17/2012 OSTROLENK FABER LLP 1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403 EXAMINER BOCHNA, DAVID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/17/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MATS WEBJÃ–RN ____________ Appeal 2010-001113 Application 10/472,422 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, KEN B. BARRETT, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001113 Application 10/472,422 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examinerâ€™s decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 5,230,540; iss. July 27, 1993). Claim 6 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The claims relate to a flanged member and methods of making a flanged member. Claim 16 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal: 16. A flanged member for use in a pipe system included in pressure equipment, the flanged member comprising: a flange part having a mass Mf, a front end with a front face and a rear end with a rear face, the front face forming a contact surface operable to be assembled with a first part of the pipe system, the rear face extending radially inwardly; and a pipe part having a mass Mp, a first end and a free end located opposite the first end, the first end of the pipe part merging with the rear face of the flange part delimiting the rear end of the flange part, the free end being operable to be welded to a second part of the pipe system, wherein before final machining of the front face of the flange part, the pipe part has an axial length (a) selected such that the mass Mp of the pipe part is equal to at least 35% of the mass Mf of the flange part so as to substantially eliminate distortion of the front face of the flange part upon welding of the free end of the pipe part. Independent claims 1 and 13 recite methods for manufacturing a flanged member of a pipe system including the step of restricting the pipe part to an axial length (a) selected such that the mass Mp of the pipe part is equal to at least 35% of the mass Mf of the flange part. Appeal 2010-001113 Application 10/472,422 3 ANALYSIS Claims 7-12 and 14-18 The Examiner found that Lewis discloses a flanged member with a flange part 201 and a pipe part 203 where the pipe part 203 may be at least 35% of the flange part 201 as called for in claim 16, because Lewis discloses that the flanges are only 2.3 to 3.2 mm thick while the pipe part has a long, tapered profile. Ans. 5 (citing Figs. 2 and 3 of Lewis). The Examiner also found that, even if Lewis does not expressly disclose that the mass of the pipe part is at least 35% of the mass of the flange part, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the pipe part so its mass is at least 35% of the mass of the flange part to limit cyclic and assembly stresses in view of Lewisâ€™s disclosure that hub thickness (th) and hub length (lh) can be changed to limit cyclic stresses in the joint. Ans. 6 (citing Lewis, col. 4, ll. 26-30). We agree with Appellant that Lewis does not disclose a pipe part 203 with an axial length selected so the mass of the pipe part 203 equals at least 35% of the mass of the flange part 201 as called for in claim 16. Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 6. Lewis discloses a design with a conical flange thickness of 2.3 mm or 3.2 mm (col. 8, ll. 19-26), but Lewis does not disclose a length of the pipe part or a mass of the pipe part or flange part for this embodiment. Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner has not adequately explained how Lewisâ€™s disclosure that hub thickness and hub length can be changed to limit cyclic stresses in the joint provides a basis for concluding that a person skilled in the art would have adjusted the length of the pipe part so that the mass Mp of the pipe part is equal to at least 35% of the mass Mf of the flange part. Ans. 6-10; see Reply Br. 4-8. Appeal 2010-001113 Application 10/472,422 4 Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 16 or claims 7- 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18, which depend therefrom. Claims 1-5 and 13 The Examiner determined that claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Lewis for the same reason as claim 16. Ans. 11. The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to adjust the flange thickness, hub thickness, and hub length to limit cyclic stresses in the flange joint so the mass of the pipe part could equal 40% to 100% of the flange part to limit cyclic stress in the flange. Ans. 4. Appellant argues that claims 1 and 13 recite the same dimensions as claim 16 and that it would not have been obvious to adjust the axial length of the pipe part such that the mass of the pipe part equals at least 35% of the mass of the flange part to limit cycle stresses or assembly stresses of Lewis for the same reasons discussed for claim 16. Reply Br. 8; App. Br. 10. We agree with Appellant for the reasons discussed supra for claim 16. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 or 13, or claims 2-5, which depend from claim 1. DECISION The Examinerâ€™s decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewis is REVERSED. REVERSED mls