Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13533149 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/533,149 06/26/2012
83938 7590 09/02/2016
Brooks Kushman P,C,
1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wenying Yang
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.
POl 8362-PTC-CHE 6653
EXAMINER
YOON, KEVIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENYING YANG
and QI GUI WANG
Appeal2015-001342
Application 13/533,149
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1---6 and 9--14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is stated to be GM Global Technology Operations
LLC (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2015-001342
Application 13/533,149
Claim l is illustrative of the appealed subject matter (emphasis added
to highlight key disputed limitations):
1. A feed system for semi-solid metal casting, the system
compnsmg:
a first chamber for receiving a metal alloy billet, the first
chamber including heaters and a cutting system, the metal alloy
billet being heated by the heaters and cut by the cutting system
into predetermined lengths to form semi-solid metal alloy
portions;
a second chamber connected to the first chamber by a passage
to receive the semisolid metal alloy portions, the second chamber
including a door that opens and closes the passage and a plunger
system that introduces the semi-solid metal portions to a die cast
machine; and
an atmosphere control system for removing oxygen from the
feed system, the atmosphere control system being in fluid
communication with the first chamber and the second chamber,
the atmosphere control system including an inert gas purging
system that introduces an inert gas into the first chamber via inlet
port and then into the second chamber via the passage such that
the metal alloy billet is heated in the first chamber under a
substantially oxygen free environment to a temperature at which
the metal alloy billet is a semi-solid.
(Claims App'x. 1).
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(a) Claims 1-3, 6, and 9-14 as unpatentable over Ihara et al. (JP
2001-191168 A, published July 17, 2001; as translated) (hereinafter "Ihara")
in view of Fujikawa (US 7,137,435 B2, issued Nov. 21, 2006) (hereinafter
"Fujikawa"); and
2
Appeal2015-001342
Application 13/533,149
(b) Claims 4 and 5 are rejected as being unpatentable over Ihara in
view of Fujikawa, and further in view of Muller et al. (US 2009/0139683
Al, published June 4, 2009) (hereinafter "Muller").
Appellants' arguments urging reversal of the rejections of claims 2-6
and 9-14 focus on limitations common to independent claims 1 and 14
(App. Br. 3-7; Reply Br. 1-3). In the absence of arguments specific to their
patentability, dependent claims 2---6 and 9-13 and independent claim 14
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner's conclusion that independent claim 1, all of its
dependent claims, and independent claim 14 are unpatentable over the
applied prior art and that Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred reversibly. We sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections, as listed in (a)
and (b) above, of all the appealed claims for essentially the reasons set out
by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Ihara's disclosure of a feed system for semi-
solid metal casting discloses all of claim 1 's limitations (Ans. 2) except that
"Ihara fails to specifically teach that the second chamber is connected to the
first chamber by a passage and an atmosphere control system, the
atmosphere control system being in fluid communication with the first
chamber and the second chamber" (id. at 3). The Examiner finds, however,
that Fujikawa discloses a die casting apparatus, which includes the claimed
3
Appeal2015-001342
Application 13/533,149
atmosphere control system in fluid communication with both chambers (id.
(citingFujikawaFig.1; 7:40-8:60; 17:62-18:16)). The Examiner concludes
that because "Fujikawa purges the first chamber before melting the alloy
billet, the alloy billet would be heated [in the first chamber] under a
substantially oxygen free environment to a temperature at which the metal
alloy billet is a semi-solid" (Ans. 3).
Therefore, according to the Examiner, it would have been obvious for
the ordinary skilled artisan "to modify the invention of Ihara to connect the
second chamber to the first chamber by passage to prevent the interaction
with the semi-solid alloy with the atmosphere and employ the atmosphere
control system ... " (id. at 3--4). The Examiner further determined that
because "the system of Ihara in view of Fujikawa and the claimed system are
structurally indistinguishable, the [Examiner's modified] system ... is
capable of performing the claimed function" (id. at 4).
Appellants argue that "Fujikawa does not teach a system that is
completely purged" because "the chamber immediately before supplying
hole 15a (i.e., melting device 10) is not purged" (App. Br. 6 (citing
Fujikawa, 8:46-60); see also Reply Br. 2 ("There is no mention that the
purging gas can flow back into the preceding chamber (the first chamber)")).
Appellants' arguments, however, are not persuasive because Fujikawa
explicitly discloses that "[i]nert gas is injected for purging the air in the
melting cylinder 11" (Fujikawa 17:63---64), which is located within melting
device 10 (see id. at Fig. 1; see also Ans. 8).
Given the structural similarity of the Examiner's modified system as
taught by the prior art to Appellants' feed system for semi-solid metal
casting as claimed, we determine that the Examiner was justified in
4
Appeal2015-001342
Application 13/533,149
concluding that the system of Ihara in view of Fujikawa renders claim l
obvious. The Examiner's modified system reasonably appears to have the
capability of functioning as claimed, as when Fujikawa purges the first
chamber before melting the alloy billet as explained by the Examiner (e.g.,
Ans. 3, 7-8). See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (explaining that where there is reason to conclude that the structure of
the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the
burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably
distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure.).
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in the obviousness
determination of the subject matter of claims 1-6 and 9-14 over the applied
prior art. Appellants have not specifically refuted the Examiner's
determination that all the structural limitations of independent claims 1 and
14 are disclosed by the combination of Ihara and Fujikawa (Ans. 2--4; 5; 6-
8), such that Fujikawa's atmospheric control system is capable of the
claimed functions if combined with Ihara's first chamber, which is provided
with heaters and a cutting system (id., App. Br.; Reply Br. generally).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of the claims
on appeal.
DECISION
The Examiner's§ 103 rejections are affirmed.
5
Appeal2015-001342
Application 13/533,149
THvIE PERIOD
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
6