Ex Parte Yamauti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2017

13086693 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2017)

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.
13/086,693 04/14/2011 Noriaki YAMAUTI 429555US99CONT 4695
22850 7590 09/06/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
HA, STEVEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2017 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORIAKI YAMAUTI, SHIGEAKI TAKAHASHI,
and SHOJIRO NAITOH
Appeal 2016-002839
Application 13/086,693
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, 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’
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a casting nozzle structure. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A casting nozzle structure, comprising:
a tubular part provided with a casting channel for casting
molten metal from a tundish;
a flange part, provided on an upper portion of the tubular
part, having a rectangular upper surface portion, two opposite
Appeal 2016-002839
Application 13/086,693
side plane portions connected to the rectangular upper surface
portion, each one of the two opposite side plane portions being
positioned in parallel to a horizontal direction in which the
nozzle is inserted, and an arc portion of radius R joining each of
the two opposite side plane portions with the upper portion of
the tubular part in an X direction;
a metal case for reinforcing and covering the side plane
portions, the arc portion, and the upper portion of the tubular
part; and
an insert guide extending in a Y direction perpendicular
to the X direction in parallel to each of the two opposite side
plane portions of the flange part and having an inclined plane
with respect to a vertical direction supporting the nozzle, for
supporting the arc portion of the flange part via the metal case,
wherein the nozzle is inserted into the insert guide only
in the Y direction, and the radius R is equal to or greater than
15 mm.
The References
US 4,995,535 Feb. 26, 1991
US 5,954,989 Sep. 21, 1999
US 2003/0029892 A1 Feb. 13, 2003
JP 2005-211905 A Aug. 11,2005
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
5, 7, and 8 over Brook in view of Nakamura and Ooya and claims 2 and 4
over Brook in view of Nakamura, Ooya, and Kawano.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent
claim, i.e., claim l.1 That claim requires a casting nozzle structure
comprising a tubular part having a flange part with two opposite side plane
Ooya
Brook
Kawano
Nakamura (as translated)
1 The Examiner does not rely upon Kawano for any disclosure that remedies
the deficiency in Brook, Nakamura and Ooya as to the limitations in the
independent claim (Ans. 9—10).
2
Appeal 2016-002839
Application 13/086,693
portions and an upper portion joined by an arc portion having a radius equal
to or greater than 15 mm.
To meet that claim requirement the Examiner relies upon a comer of
Brook’s monoblock tundish nozzle casting member (20)’s nozzle or tube
portion (58) (at numeral “56” in Fig. 6) (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds
(Ans. 4—5):
Though the combination of Brook, Nakamura and Ooya is
silent to wherein the radius R is equal to or greater than 15 mm;
however, where the only difference between the prior art and
the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed
device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions
would not perform differently than the prior art device, the
claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art
device. Furthermore, Appellant provides no criticality for why
the radius R must be equal to or greater than 15 mm.
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The
Examiner does not establish that Brook’s nozzle or tube portion (58) would
not perform differently if its relied-upon comer had a radius equal to or
greater than 15 mm. The Examiner’s mere speculation to that effect does not
provide the required apparent reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified that comer such that it has that radius.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed casting nozzle stmcture.
3
Appeal 2016-002839
Application 13/086,693
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 over
Brook in view of Nakamura and Ooya and claims 2 and 4 over Brook in
view of Nakamura, Ooya, and Kawano are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4