Ex Parte Werenskiold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12515497 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/515,497 06/04/2010
513 7590 04/04/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jens Christofer Werenskiold
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.
2009_0769A 1136
EXAMINER
LEYSON, JOSEPH S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS CHRISTOPER WERENSKIOLD,
LARS AURAN, HANS JORGEN ROVEN, NILS RYUM, and
ODDVIN REISO
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, MARK NAGUMO, and A VEL YN M. ROSS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board by ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion dissenting-in-part by NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our opinion below, we refer to the Final Office Action appealed from,
mailed March 28, 2013 (Final Act.), the Appeal Brief, filed January 27, 2014
(Appeal Br.), and the Examiner's Answer, mailed June 5, 2014 (Ans.).
2 Appellants identify Norsk Hydro ASA as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims are directed to a screw extruder "including an Archimedes
screw provided in a screw housing with an inlet for the feeding of the
material to be extruded, a compacting or extrusion chamber and an extrusion
die assembly with a die which forms the shape of the desired extruded
product." Spec. 1, 11. 14--17. The screw extruder is useful "for the
continuous extrusion of materials with high viscosity, in particular metals
such as aluminum and its alloys." Id. at 11. 12-13. Claim 11, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
11. A screw extruder for the continuous extrusion of high
viscosity metal, the screw extruder comprising:
a screw housing including an inner liner and an inlet
formed in an upstream end of the screw housing for feeding the
material to be extruded;
an Archimedes screw rotationally provided within the
liner of the screw housing;
an extn.1sion die assembly including a die configured to
shape the extruded product; and
an extrusion chamber formed between a downstream end
of the screw and the extrusion die assembly,
wherein the screw and inner liner define a compaction
zone at a downstream part of the screw towards the extrusion
chamber such that compaction of the material takes place in the
compaction zone,
wherein the compaction zone corresponds to up to 540° of
the rotation of the screw, or up to 1.5 turns of the screw flight
length, and
wherein a required compaction and extrusion pressure is
obtained by the compacted material in the compaction zone and
a solid plug of metal in the extrusion chamber is restricted from
rigid rotation.
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 15.
2
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
A. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 2.
B. Claims 11-13 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lambert3. Final Act. 3.
C. Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of
Yagi et al. 4 Final Act. 6.
Appellants seek our review of rejections A and B only. Appeal Br. 4--
14. Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20---depending from claims 11 and 16-
therefore, stand or fall with the claim from which they depend.
OPINION
Rejection A- Written Description
Claim 19 recites a screw extruder where the "front end portion of the
extrusion chamber has a cross sectional shape that is substantially
rectangular." Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner finds that
claim 19, which was amended, broadly includes matter that "is NOT
originally disclosed and thus is new matter." Ans. 9; see also Final Act. 3
("there is no original disclosure of the extrusion chamber having a
substantially rectangular cross sectional shape at least at a downstream end
thereof."). The Examiner finds that while the Specification does teach a
3 Lambert, US 1,353,917, issued September 28, 1920 (hereinafter
"Lambert").
4 Yagi et al., US 5,318,432, issued June 7, 1994 (hereinafter "Yagi").
3
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
square-shaped cross section, a rectangle is broader than a square, i.e., not all
rectangles are squares. Ans. 9.
Appellants respond that rectangular-shaped cross sections are within
the original disclosure. Appeal Br. 4--5. First, Appellants note that original
claim 4 recited an extrusion chamber having a square cross section. Id. at 4.
The Specification, according to Appellants, teaches a cross section that is
"close to square cross section shape." Id.; Spec. 5, 11. 17-18. And,
Appellants then points to Figure 2 (a side view) and Figure 3 (an end view)
to show an extruder design where "the front end of the extrusion chamber 5
has a rectangular cross sectional shape, i.e., close to a square cross section
shape." Id. Appellants also argue that a square, by definition, is a rectangle.
Id.
Thus, the issue becomes whether Appellants have identified a
reversible error in the Examiner's finding that the claimed extrusion
chamber having "a cross sectional shape that is substantially rectangular" is
not ongmally disclosed and is new matter. We find that Appellants have not
identified reversible error.
For an applicant to comply with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 1 written
description requirement, the applicant's specification must "convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
he or she was in possession of the invention." Carnegie Mellon Univ. v.
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541F.3d1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
"The content of the drawings may also be considered in determining
compliance with the written description requirement." In re Kaslow, 707
F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The sufficiency of an application's
4
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
written description is a question of fact. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane).
We sustain the Examiner's findings, and therefore, affirm the
rejection of claim 19 for failure to comply with the written description
requirement. Our review of the Specification and Figures 1, 2, and 3
convinces us that Appellants did not have possession of the subject matter of
the rejected claims as of the application's filing date. As Appellants
correctly point out, the Specification describes a "close to square cross
section shape" which is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. Spec. 5, 11. 17-18
(emphasis added). But, the Examiner correctly finds that "a rectangle is
NOT always a square and includes other [rectangular] shapes that are NOT
close to square cross section shape." Ans. 9. Therefore, a rectangle is
broader than a square. Furthermore, the "close to square cross section
shape" described in the Specification, and illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 of
the instant application, showing the front end of extrusion chamber 5,
exemplify a square-shaped cross section with rounded corners-and not a
cross-section having any and all substantially rectangular cross-sections as in
claim 19. Appearance of a claim in the specification in ipsis verb is does not
guarantee that the written description requirement is satisfied, see, e.g., Enzo
Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002), nor
does a failure to meet that standard require a finding that a claim does not
comply with the written description requirement, In re Edwards, 568 F.2d
1349, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 1978). "One shows that one is 'in possession' of
the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations,
not that which makes it obvious." Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 107
F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added; original emphasis not
reproduced). Here, the Specification and drawings, as originally filed,
5
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
relied upon by Appellants do not expressly or impliedly describe an extruder
chamber front end having any and all substantially rectangular cross-section
shapes included by claim 19. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has
demonstrated that the Specification does not reasonably convey that the
inventor had possession of the subject matter of the rejected claims.
We affirm the rejection of claim 19 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
Rejection B -Anticipation
The Examiner rejects claims 11-13 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lambert. Appellants argue claims 11, 16
and 17 separately but Appellants present substantively the same argument
for claims 11 and 16. Appeal Br. 13. Therefore, we focus our discussion
below on claims 11 and 17 to resolve the issues on appeal.
Claim 1:
The Examiner finds that each structural limitation of claim 11 is found
in Lambert. Final Act. 3--4. Additionally, the Examiner finds, with respect
to the compaction zone,
Lambert (US 1,353,917) discloses that the inward movement of
the clay is very gradual until a required compaction produces a
near uniform density of the solid plug (i.e., p. 2, lines 73- 92; i.e.,
the required compaction will be towards the end of the screw),
and thus the extruder of Lambert (US 1,353,917) is capable of
having the required compaction within the instantly claimed
ranges of degree of rotation and of turns.
Id. at 4. The Examiner further finds that Lambert has two turns and,
according to the Examiner, processing conditions such as screw speed,
viscosity of the material being extruded, extrusion temperature and pressure,
6
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
among other factors, effects the actual degree of rotation required for
compaction. Id.
Appellants offer several arguments in opposition to the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(b). First, the Appellants explain that "the
present invention, as defined in claim 11, is not directed to screw extruders
broadly, but screw extruders suitable for continuously extruding high
viscosity metal, for claim 11 is so limited." Appeal Br. 11. Appellants
argue that the Examiner is "ignoring the preamble [of claim 11], which
describes 'a screw extruder for the continuous extrusion of high viscosity
metal."' Id. Moreover, says Appellants, the Examiner has failed to make a
finding that Lambert is capable of extruding a high viscosity metal as
required by the instant application. Id.
The Examiner responds that Appellants' claims are directed to an
apparatus. Ans. 13. Appellants use of "intended use" language (e.g., "for
the continuous extrusion of high viscosity metal," "of metal," and "for the
continuous extrusion of metal including aluminum and alloys") does not add
structural limitations to the claims. Id. The Examiner further explains that
[ t ]he only other reference to "metal" in the body of claim 11 is
"wherein ... a solid plug of metal in the extrusion chamber is
restricted from rigid rotation". However, there are no claim
recitations in claim 11 relating or limiting the "solid plug of
metal" in the body of the claim to the "high viscosity metal" in
the preamble of the claim.
Ans. 13-14. Therefore, says the Examiner, the preamble is not a limitation.
Id. at 14. The Examiner also finds that "[ c ]lay is a high viscosity material,
and thus the Lambert extruder is capable of extruding other high viscosity
materials, such as high viscosity metals having the same high viscosity of
clay." Id. at 15. The Examiner notes too that "Lambert is a short screw [like
7
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
that disclosed in the Specification], and thus is capable of extruding high
viscosity metal." Id. Appellants do not submit a rebuttal to this finding.
It has long been held that "apparatus claims cover what a device is,
not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909
F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). An inventor of a structure (machine or
article of manufacture) is entitled to benefit from all of its uses, even those
not described, Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875), and conversely,
patentability of the structure cannot tum on the use or function of the
structure, In re Michlin, 256 F .2d 317, 320 (CCP A 1958). And, a preamble
may be construed as a limitation "if it recites essential structure or steps, or
if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim." Catalina
Mktg. Int'!, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298,
1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A preamble is not limiting, however, "where a
patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses
the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention." Id.
(quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see also
Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int'! Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed.
Cir. 2008).
We agree with the Examiner that the "for the continuous extrusion of
high viscosity metal" (and "for the continuous extrusion of metal including
aluminum and alloys" of claim 16) language used in the preamble of claim
11 (and 16), does not limit the claim. Appellants claims are drawn to an
apparatus-more particularly, a screw extruder. The recited structural
elements in the body of the claim "define a structurally complete invention"
and do not depend on "for continuous extrusion" to provide any additional
structure to the claimed screw extruder. Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808.
8
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
We similarly agree with the Examiner that the "for the continuous extrusion
of high viscosity metal" in the preamble of claim 11 (and "for the continuous
extrusion of metal including aluminum and alloys" of claim 16) does not
breathe life into the claims. After introduction of the phrase "for continuous
extrusion," the claim fails to reference the phrase again. And, as the
Examiner also finds, the recitation of "a solid plug of metal" in the body of
the claims is insufficient to breathe life such that the preamble is a limitation
because there is no relationship between the disputed preamble language and
the metal plug.
Further, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings 5 that clay
is a high viscosity material (Ans. 15) and that the Lambert screw extruder
having the same structure as that recited in the claims is capable of extruding
high viscosity metals (Id.). See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-79
(Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Schreiber's contention that his structure will be used to
dispense popcorn does not have patentable weight if the structure is already
known" and "the Board [correctly] found that the Harz dispenser [for
dispensing lubricating oil] would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the
manner set forth in claim 1 of Schreiber' s application."). We adopt these
findings as fact.
Next, Appellants contend that the compaction zone of Lambert "is far
in excess of the compaction zone specified in claim 11, i.e. up to 540° of the
rotation of the screw, or up to 1.5 turns of the screw flight length." Appeal
Br. 7-8. Specifically, Appellants argue that compaction occurs along the
entire screw length of Lambert and "as shown in the Fig. 1 of the Lambert
5 Appellants did not submit a reply brief.
9
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
patent, the compaction zone is at least 720° of the rotation of the screw 4, or
2.0 turns of the screw flight length." Id. at 7 and 10.
The Examiner finds that Appellants define the compaction zone as the
entire screw length, which in light of the claim language, is incorrect. Ans.
10. The Examiner explains that "the compaction zone is at a downstream
part of the screw towards the extrusion chamber. Thus, the compaction zone
of Lambert is smaller than the entire length of the screw 4 and the liner 7."
Id. at 10-11.
We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner. It is clear
from the claim that the compaction zone is not equated with the entire length
of the screw. Claim 11 explains that "the screw and inner liner define a
compaction zone at a downstream part of the screw towards the extrusion
chamber" and that "the compaction zone corresponds to up to 540° of the
rotation of the screw, or up to 1.5 turns of the screw flight length." See
Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 15. The Specification confirms this
understanding of the claims. For example, the Specification states:
At the outlet end of the container/liner, 2, 4, by the downstream
end of the screw 1, is provided a extrusion chamber 5, and further
at end of this chamber is provided a die assembly 6 which form
the shape the profile 7 to be extruded.
Spec. 3, 11. 25-27 (emphasis added).
The screw is designed to ensure that the granules can be
transported freely from the feeding zone A to the transport zone
B until the material, by the building up of pressure at the end of
the screw, stick to the metal in the pressure generating and
compacting zone C.
Id. at 4, 11. 6-9 (emphasis added).
10
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
The compacted material contained in the pressure generating
section of the screw is 20 completely welded to the plug and liner
wall, and is therefore also restricted from rotating.
Id. at 5, 11. 19-21 (emphasis added).
As illustrated by the Specification, the compaction zone is at the end
of the screw and is a subset section of the screw. Moreover, the
Specification teaches that the compaction zone will vary based on the
material being extruded and may be less than 1.5 turns of the screw. The
Specification explains
Tests with different aluminum alloys proves that the required
compaction necessary for extrusion takes place at the last part of
the screw corresponding to up to 540°, or up to 1, 5 [sic] tum of
the screw flight length. However, some tests proved that required
compaction took place at even shorter flight lengths, even below
360°.
Id. at 4, 11. 24--28.
Further, nothing in the claims or the Specification requires that compaction
exclusively occur within the compaction zone.
Lastly, Appellants claim that "there is nothing in the extrusion
chamber in the Lambert patent to restrict a solid plug of material from rigid
rotation as specified in claim 11." Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner in response
finds that
Lambert discloses that the material compressed into a more
nearly uniform density (i.e., a solid plug of material, as
mentioned above) is discharged into the nozzle 11 (i.e., the
extrusion chamber) where it assumes a lineal movement (i.e.,
restricted from rigid rotation by the structure of the nozzle 11)
and then formed by the die 12 (i.e., p. 2, lines 109-12).
Ans. 11. Appellants do not reply.
On this record, we agree with the Examiner. Appellants offer little
substance to their argument that Lambert is missing something to restrict
11
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
rotation and Appellants do not reference their own Specification to provide
structure to this functional limitation. Moreover, Appellants do not dispute
the Examiner's findings above. We therefore adopt these findings as fact.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 11-13, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as anticipated by Lambert.
Claim 17:
Claim 1 7, in relevant part, requires a feeding zone, an intermediate
transport zone, and a pressure generating and compacting zone. See Claims
Appendix at Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner finds that Lambert teaches:
inner liner2 [sic] 7 and the screw 4 define a feeding zone (at an
upstream end thereof) communicating with the inlet 2, an
intermediate transport zone (at a middle portion thereof), and a
pressure generating and compacting zone (at a downstream end
thereof) communicating with the extrusion chamber, the feeding
zone is disposed upstream of the transport zone, the pressure
generating and compacting zone is disposed downstream of the
transport zone, and the zones are formed by reducing a core
diameter of the screw 4 from the feeding section to the pressure
generating and compacting zone (i.e., see fig. l ).
Final Act. 4--5. Thus, according to the Examiner, Lambert teaches each
element of claim 1 7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner is arbitrarily identifying portions
of the Lambert apparatus and correlating these portions to Appellants'
claimed zones. Appeal Br. 14. Appellants continue that because Lambert
teaches that "compaction occurs along the entire length of the screw due to
the longitudinal ridges 20 and spiral grooves 23" the "Lambert screw cannot
define a feeding zone communicating with the inlet or an intermediate zone
as required in claim 17." Id.
The Examiner replies while Lambert does disclose compaction along
the entire length of the screw, "claim 17 does not negate compaction within
12
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
the intermediate transport zone." Ans. 16. Additionally, the Examiner finds
that "the inlet 2 communicates with a feeding zone of the liner 7 and the
screw 4 through a space in housing 1 (see fig. 1 )" and this middle section
"can define an intermediate transport zone." Id.
The question thus becomes whether Appellants have identified
reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Lambert teaches a feeding
zone and a transport zone as required by claim 1 7.
We agree with the Examiner and adopt the Examiner's findings in the
Final Office Action and the Examiner's Answer as our own. We add the
following for emphasis. The Lambert Specification also describes the zones
of claim 17. Specifically, Lambert explains that:
The machine which I have illustrated comprises a main mixing
barrel or cylinder 1, provided with an opening 2 at the top for
feeding the clay, and a main shaft 3 which carries upon its inner
end the screw 4. The main shaft 3 has a squared end 5, which
fits into a correspondingly squared recess 6, which is formed in
the screw 4. The screw 4 is tapered downward toward its end
and is surrounded by a shell or screw casing 7, of corresponding
form. The shell 7 fits closely to the screw 4 so that the edges of
the fins or screw-blade 8, which are formed with an enlarged
edge portion 9, fit closely in the shell 7.
Lambert p. 1, 11. 51---65. Moreover, the Appellants' Specification does not
require that compaction exclusively occur within the pressure generating and
compaction zone.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 17.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
13
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11-13 and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lambert.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 14, 15, 19, and 20, under
35 U.S.C § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Yagi et al.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-20 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)(l )(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS CHRISTOPER WERENSKIOLD,
LARS AURAN, HANS JORGEN ROVEN, NILS RYUM, and
ODDVIN REISO
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
Technology Center 1700
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting-in-part.
14
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the rejections in view of
Lambert. In my view, Appellants have shown harmful error in the
Examiner's interpretation of independent claim 11.
To be anticipatory, a reference must describe, either expressly or
inherently, each and every claim limitation, arranged or combined as
required by the claimed invention, and enable one of skill in the art to
practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue
experimentation. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2009).
The claim is perhaps somewhat inartfully drafted, in that it is easy to
read the functional limitations as an attempt to limit claims to an apparatus
by reciting conditions that arise in particular processes of extruding
particular metals. Nonetheless, in my view, the recitation in the preamble,
that the claimed screw extruder is "for the continuous extrusion of high
viscosity metal," breathes life and meaning into the claim. Moreover, the
final clause of claim 11, "wherein a required compaction and extrusion
pressure is obtained by the compacted material in the compaction zone and a
solid plug of metal in the extrusion chamber is restricted from rigid
rotation," refers back to the preamble in a way that reinforces the properties
that the claimed apparatus must satisfy to be useful for the recited use.
The Specification explains that "[ e ]xtrusion of materials with high
viscosity such as aluminum requires a considerably high pressure to force
the aluminum through the die block and the die, typically 100 to 500MPa."
(Spec. 1, 11. 19-21.) These high pressures are said to have resulted in the
dominance of ram extrusion, a batch process, for the extrusion of such
metals, rather than continuous screw extrusion, which is said to be useful for
2
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
extruding lead, which has "sliding friction," but not for extruding aluminum,
which is said to exhibit "sticking friction at the extrusion temperatures, i.e.
the aluminum welds to the container and the screw material." (Id. at 2, 11. 5-
6.) This behavior is reflected in the recitation of claim 11, that the "solid
plug of metal in the extrusion chamber is restricted from rigid rotation."
Thus, a device that extrudes high viscosity metals must be capable of
providing pressure adequate to extrude solid metal that is welded to the
container and the screw material through the extrusion die assembly.
First, as Appellants point out (Appeal Br. 10, 1st para.), there is no
disclosure in Lambert that would provide any support for a finding that that
screw press described by Lambert for extruding clay that is to be fired to
form bricks is capable of providing the required compaction and extrusion
pressures required to extrude metal, as required by devices covered by
claim 11.
Moreover, the screw extruder does not anticipate the screw extruders
covered by claim 11 because the compaction zone in the Lambert extruder,
as Appellants argue (Appeal Br. 10, 1st full para.), is described by Lambert
as being longer than 540°, or 1.5 turns of the screw flight length (Lambert 2,
11. 35-73).
For these reasons, I would reverse the rejection for anticipation.
Because the secondary references are not relied on to cure any defects of
Lambert, I would also reverse the rejection for obviousness.
I therefore dissent, with respect.
mn
3
Appeal2014-008640
Application 12/515,497
4