JFE STEEL CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2020

14439112 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2020)

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.
14/439,112 04/28/2015 Shigehiro Takajo JFES-110US 1041
23122 7590 07/27/2020
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
EXAMINER
KOSHY, JOPHY STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2020 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):
PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHIGEHIRO TAKAJO, MASANORI UESAKA, and
KAZUHIRO HANAZAWA
____________

Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3.2 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies JFE Steel Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed January 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 1.
2 Non-Final Office Action entered July 18, 2018 (“Office Act.”) at 1.
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant claims a method of manufacturing a grain-oriented
electrical steel sheet. Appeal Br. 1–3. Independent claims 1 and 3 illustrate
the subject matter on appeal, and read as follows:
1. A method of manufacturing a grain-oriented electrical
steel sheet, the method comprising:
measuring a thickness t, in millimeters, and a flux density
of a first steel sheet;
determining an irradiation energy per unit scanning
length Ewmin(0.23), in Joules per meter, of a second steel sheet
having a thickness of 0.23 millimeters that produces a minimum
amount of iron loss from the second steel sheet, the flux density
of the second steel sheet being the same as the flux density of
the first steel sheet;
adjusting an irradiation energy per unit scanning length
E(t), in Joules per meter, of an electron beam to satisfy the
following Expression (1) for the first steel sheet,
Ewmin(0.23) x (1.61 - 2.83 x t) ≤ E(t) ≤ Ewmin(0.23) x
(1.78 - 3.12 x t) ... Expression (1); and
thereafter irradiating a surface of the first steel sheet to
obtain a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet from the first steel
sheet with an adjusted electron beam in a direction intersecting
a rolling direction.

3. A method of manufacturing a grain-oriented electrical
steel sheet, the method comprising:
measuring a thickness t, in millimeters, and a flux density
of a first steel sheet, wherein the thickness t of the first steel
sheet is 0.23 mm or more;
determining a line spacing smin(0.23), in millimeters, for
a second steel sheet having a thickness of 0.23 millimeters that
produces a minimum amount of iron loss from the second steel
sheet, the flux density of the second steel sheet being the same
as the flux density of the first steel sheet;
adjusting a line spacing s(t) in millimeters of an electron
beam to satisfy the following Expression (2),
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

3
smin(0.23)/(1.78 - 3.12 x t) ≤ s(t) ≤ smin(0.23)/(1.61 -
2.83 x t) ... Expression (2); and
thereafter irradiating a surface of the first steel sheet to
obtain a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet from the first steel
sheet with an adjusted electron beam in a direction intersecting
a rolling direction.

Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered May 13, 2019 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to
comply with the enablement requirement;
II. Claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter that the applicant regards as the invention; and
VI. Claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Inokuti et al. (US 5,411,604, issued May 2, 1995).
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1–3 for reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, and below.
Rejection I
We first address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the enablement
requirement.

Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

4
Appellant’s Specification teaches that grain-oriented electrical steel
sheets are used to form the cores of transformers. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3. The
Specification explains that energy loss occurs during operation of
transformers due to iron loss from the core material. Spec. ¶ 3. The
Specification indicates that irradiating a recrystallized steel sheet with an
electron beam reduces such iron loss, but as the thickness of a steel sheet
increases, the degree of iron loss reduction produced by laser irradiation
decreases. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 7.
The Specification describes irradiating the surface of a grain-oriented
electrical sheet with an electron beam in a straight line from one edge of the
sheet in the width direction to the opposite edge of the sheet, and repeating
such irradiation lines in the rolling (or length) direction of the sheet, with the
spacing between the irradiation lines (line spacing(s) in the rolling direction,
or RD line spacing) preferably from 3 mm to 12 mm. Spec. ¶ 37; see also
Spec. ¶ 13. The Specification explains that when so irradiating a grain-
oriented electrical sheet, the electron beam is set to a particular irradiation
energy per unit scanning length (or beam acceleration voltage x beam
current/scanning rate). Spec. ¶ 15.
Independent claim 1 recites a method of manufacturing a grain-
oriented electrical steel sheet that comprises, in part, determining an
irradiation energy per unit scanning length Ewmin(0.23) in Joules per meter
of a (second) steel sheet having a thickness of 0.23 millimeters and a flux
density that is the same as a first steel sheet that produces a minimum
amount of iron loss from the (second) steel sheet.
Independent claim 3 recites a method of manufacturing a grain-
oriented electrical steel sheet that comprises, in part, determining a line
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

5
spacing smin(0.23) in millimeters for a (second) steel sheet having a
thickness of 0.23 millimeters and a flux density that is the same as a first
steel sheet that produces a minimum amount of iron loss from the (second)
steel sheet.
The Examiner finds that the Specification “does not detail” how these
“determining” steps recited in claims 1 and 3 are “done,” and how “to
evaluate what constitutes a minimum iron loss.” Office Act. 5. The
Examiner finds that although the Specification includes limited working
examples that describe irradiating steel sheets with an electron beam, “the
specification does not disclose a composition of any of the sheets or how to
determine and what constitutes the ‘minimum’ iron loss for any or all
compositions of steel.” Office Act. 5–6. The Examiner also finds that
although Figure 2A of Appellant’s application “illustrates the relationship
between irradiation energy and the amount of change in iron loss ΔW17/50
(W/kg) for an electron beam method” in which the irradiation energy per
unit scanning length was varied from 0 to 30 J/m for sheet thicknesses of
0.20, 0.23, 0.27, and 0.30 mm, Figure 2A is directed to the “‘[a]mount of
change in iron loss ΔW17/50 (W/kg)’ for four specific sheet thicknesses at
specific irradiation energy per unit scanning length and therefore does not
define how to determine the ‘minimum iron loss.’” Office Act. 6.
The Examiner concludes that “[s]ince the instant specification does
not detail the composition of the steel sheet and what is considered
‘minimum iron loss’ that would lead to a) Ewmin(0.23) that minimizes iron
loss for material with a sheet thickness of 0.23 mm and b) line spacing
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

6
smin(0.23) that minimizes iron loss for material with a sheet thickness of
0.23 mm, the specification fails to teach how to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation.” Office Act. 7.
On the record before us, however, in light of the description provided
in Appellant’s Specification and drawings, the Examiner does not establish
that one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to make and use the full
scope of the claimed methods without undue experimentation, for reasons
expressed by Appellant and discussed below.
“[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those
skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention
without ‘undue experimentation.’” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Some experimentation, even a considerable amount, is not
“undue” if it is merely routine, or if the Specification provides a reasonable
amount of guidance as to the direction in which the experimentation should
proceed. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
“In cases involving predictable factors, such as mechanical or
electrical elements, a single embodiment provides broad enablement in the
sense that, once imagined, other embodiments can be made without
difficulty and their performance characteristics predicted by resort to known
scientific laws.” In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970); see also In
re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 496 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Where, as here, a claimed
genus represents a diverse and relatively poorly understood group of
microorganisms, the required level of disclosure will be greater than, for
example, the disclosure of an invention involving a ‘predictable’ factor such
as a mechanical or electrical element.”).
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

7
We point out initially that when explaining the basis for the
enablement rejection, the Examiner addresses “a minimum amount of iron
loss from the second steel sheet” as recited in claims 1 and 3 in isolation,
without considering this phrase in the context of the entirety of claim in
which it occurs. Claims 1 and 3 do not recite determining “the ‘minimum’
iron loss for any or all compositions of steel,” as the Examiner appears to
assert. Rather, claim 1 recites determining an irradiation energy that
produces a minimum amount of iron loss from a particular (second) steel
sheet having a thickness of 0.23 mm and a flux density that is the same as a
first steel sheet, and claim 3 recites determining a line spacing that produces
a minimum amount of iron loss from a particular (second) steel sheet having
a thickness of 0.23 mm and a flux density that is the same as a first steel
sheet.
In addition, as Appellant points out, the claimed methods are “not
directed to any specific type of steel sheets or composition,” but, rather are
“directed to grain-oriented electrical steel sheets,” and, therefore, “there is
no need for the specification to describe the composition of the steel sheets
or a method for preparing the sheets, as one skilled in the art would
appreciate that any grain-oriented electrical steel sheet can be used in the
present invention.” Reply Br. 1–2.
Furthermore, as Appellant and the Specification explain, a steel sheet
that has not been irradiated with an electron beam will undergo a particular
amount of iron loss during operation, but after electron beam irradiation, the
amount of iron loss decreases, resulting in a change—or reduction—in iron
loss produced by the electron beam irradiation. Appeal Br. 5; Spec. ¶¶ 8, 15.
Appellant’s Specification describes this effect, and describes a relationship
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

8
that Appellant discovered that allows determination of the irradiation energy
per unit scanning length that produces a minimum amount of iron loss for
sheets of differing thickness (Expression (1) recited in claim 1). Spec. ¶¶ 21,
22, 30, 31, 32.
Furthermore, Appellant’s Figure 2A is a graph illustrating the change
in iron loss that resulted from irradiation of four steel sheets of differing
thicknesses with increasing amounts of irradiation energy per unit scanning
length. As Appellant explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from viewing Figure 2A that each of the four lines in the figure
has a lowest point that indicates the irradiation energy that results in the
greatest change or reduction in iron loss relative to the iron loss before
irradiation. Appeal Br. 4–6. As Appellant further explains, one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that the lowest point of each line thus
corresponds to the irradiation energy that produces the minimum amount of
iron loss for each sheet. Appeal Br. 5.
Therefore, in view of the description provided in Appellant’s
Specification, and considering Appellant’s Figure 2A, one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that “each steel sheet of a known thickness has a
level of irradiation energy per unit scanning length that produces a minimum
amount of iron loss,” and would also understand how to determine this
minimum iron loss for a given steel sheet of a particular thickness (0.23 mm)
and flux density, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5.
The Specification also describes a relationship that Appellant
discovered that allows determination of the irradiation line spacing that
produces a minimum amount of iron loss for sheets of differing thicknesses
(Expression (2) recited in claim 3). Spec. ¶¶ 23, 33.
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

9
As Appellant explains, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand, in view of the description provided in paragraph 33 of
Appellant’s Specification, that Expression (2) recited in claim 3 can be
derived from Expression (1) recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2–4. And one of
ordinary skill in the art would also understand that a steel sheet having a
thickness of 0.23 mm and a given flux density can be irradiated with an
electron beam using different levels of line spacing, and would understand
how to determine the line spacing that results in the greatest change or
reduction in iron loss relative to iron loss before irradiation, in view of
Figure 2A. Spec. ¶¶ 33, 37; Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 4–5. In other words,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the line spacing that
results in the greatest change or reduction in iron loss can be determined the
same way that the irradiation energy that results in the greatest change or
reduction in iron loss can be determined, as illustrated in Figure 2A.
Consequently, in view of the description provided in Appellant’s
Specification, and considering Appellant’s Figure 2A, one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand how to determine the line spacing for a given
steel sheet of a particular thickness (0.23 mm) and flux density that produces
a minimum amount of iron loss, as recited in claim 3.
On the record before us, in light of the description provided in
Appellant’s Specification and drawings, the Examiner does not establish that
one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine an irradiation
energy that produces a minimum amount of iron loss from a (second) steel
sheet having a thickness of 0.23 mm and a flux density that is the same as a
first steel sheet as recited in claim 1, and determine a line spacing that
produces a minimum amount of iron loss from a particular (second) steel
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

10
sheet having a thickness of 0.23 mm and a flux density that is the same as a
first steel sheet as recited in claim 3, without undue experimentation.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the
enablement requirement.
Rejection II
We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the applicant regards as
the invention.
The Examiner determines that the “minimum amount of iron loss
from the second steel sheet” recited in claims 1 and 3 “is a relative term
which renders the claims indefinite” because “the specification does not
provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary
skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the
invention.” Office Act. 7–8. The Examiner explains that “[s]ince the
calculation of the Ewmin(0.23) and smin(0.23) are dependent on a relative
term which is not defined, the scope of the invention as claimed cannot be
reasonably apprised for instant claims 1 and 3.” Office Act. 8.
It is well-established that relative terms, such as terms of degree, do
not render claims inherently indefinite, and the Specification need not
provide a precise numerical measurement for a recited term of degree. Sonix
Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e
have rejected the proposition that claims involving terms of degree are
inherently indefinite. Thus, ‘a patentee need not define his invention with
mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

11
requirement.’”) (quoting Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d
1374, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Rather, if the Specification provides description or examples that
teach how to measure the meaning or scope of a recited term of degree, the
term of degree does not render a claim indefinite. Seattle Box Co. v. Indust.
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Enzo Biochem,
Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Because the
intrinsic evidence here provides a general guideline and examples sufficient
to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine [the scope of the
claims], the claims are not indefinite even though the construction of the
term ‘not interfering substantially’ defines the term without reference to a
precise numerical measurement.” (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
As discussed above for the enablement rejection (Rejection I), in view
of the description provided in Appellant’s Specification, and in view of
Appellant’s Figure 2A, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Appellant discovered a relationship that allows determination of the
irradiation energy per unit scanning length that produces a minimum amount
of iron loss for sheets of differing thicknesses (Expression (1) recited in
claim 1). Spec. ¶¶ 21, 22, 30, 31, 32. One of ordinary skill in the art also
would understand that Appellant discovered a relationship that allows
determination of the irradiation line spacing that produces a minimum
amount of iron loss for sheets of differing thicknesses (Expression (2)
recited in claim 3). Spec. ¶¶ 23, 33.
As also discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from viewing Figure 2A that the minimum point of each line
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

12
corresponds to the irradiation energy that produces the minimum amount of
iron loss for each sheet. Figure 2A and the accompanying description in
Appellant’s Specification (Spec. ¶¶ 19–23, 30–33) thus teach a standard for
measuring the meaning of determining an irradiation energy that produces a
“minimum amount of iron loss from the second steel sheet” as recited in
claim 1.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would also understand from the
description provided in Appellant’s Specification that the line spacing that
results in the greatest reduction in iron loss can be determined the same way
that the irradiation energy that results in the greatest reduction in iron loss
can be determined, as illustrated in Figure 2A. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 33. Figure 2A
and the accompanying description in Appellant’s Specification (Spec. ¶¶ 19–
23, 30–33) thus teach a standard for measuring the meaning of determining a
line spacing that produces a “minimum amount of iron loss from the second
steel sheet” as recited in claim 3.
Contrary to the Examiner’s determination, recitation of a “minimum
amount of iron loss from the second steel sheet” in claims 1 and 3, therefore,
does not render the scope of the claims unclear.
The Examiner also determines that “claim 1 does not explicitly recite
a thickness limitation of the sheet and a thickness of 0.6mm results in a
negative value for E(t), thereby the claim being indefinite as it [i]s unclear
how the E(t) that is to be set can be negative. Similarly, although claim 3
recites that the thickness of the first steel sheet is 0.23 mm or more, a
thickness of 0.6mm results in a negative value for s(t), thereby the claim
being indefinite as it [i]s unclear how the s(t), which is a line spacing, can be
set to a negative value.” Office Act. 8.
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

13
As Appellant explains, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that because E(t) is an irradiation energy per unit scanning
length, E(t) has a positive value, and, therefore, would understand that
Expression (1) recited in claim 1 only encompasses steel sheet thicknesses
(t) that result in the right side and the left side of the expression having
positive values. Appeal Br. 12. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that because s(t) is line spacing, s(t) has a positive value,
and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Expression (2) recited in claim 3 only encompasses steel sheet thicknesses
(t) that result in the right side and the left side of the expression having
positive values. Appeal Br. 12.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite.
Rejection III
Finally, we turn to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inokuti.
The Examiner finds that Inokuti discloses a method of producing a
grain-oriented steel sheet that comprises locally and intermittently applying
an electron beam along a widthwise direction of the sheet using scan paths
that cross the rolling direction of the sheet. Office Act. 9–10 (citing Inokuti
Abst.; col. 1, l. 5–col. 12, l. 2; claims 1–7). The Examiner finds that Inokuti
discloses adjusting parameters such as the beam acceleration voltage, beam
current, beam diameter, scanning speed, and irradiation line spacing, “to
attain the necessary iron loss characteristics for the grain oriented steel
sheets.” Office Act. 11 (citing Inokuti col. 3, l. 45–col. 10, l. 25). The
Examiner finds that Inokuti’s “Examples 1 and 2 along with Comparative
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

14
Examples 1 and 2 teach how sheets can be made by adjusting various
parameters of the beam such as energy and line spacing to attain the
characteristics of iron loss in an acceptable range.” Office Act. 11.
In view of these disclosures in Inokuti, the Examiner concludes that
“subsequent application or in other words subsequent refinement of the
parameters of the energy and line spacing to attain required characteristics as
claimed in the instant claims are obvious over the teachings of the prior art
since the prior art teaches adjustment of these parameters.” Office Act. 11.
On the record before us, however, as Appellant argues (Appeal Br.
14), the Examiner does not provide technical reasoning grounded in sound
factual findings that explains why the relied-upon disclosures of Inokuti
would have suggested the measuring, determining, and adjusting steps
recited in claims 1 and 3.
Inokuti describes preparing a grain-oriented steel sheet, preparing 162
samples from the single sheet, and subjecting the samples to irradiation by
an electron beam using a beam acceleration voltage of 130, 150, or 180 kV,
a beam current of 0.6, 0.8, or 1.0 mA, a beam diameter of 0.20 or 0.30 mm,
a scanning speed of 6, 8, or 10 m/sec, and an irradiation line spacing of 3, 5,
or 7 mm. Inokuti col. 4, ll. 19–54. Inokuti discloses that levels of iron loss
were measured on all 162 samples, but Inokuti does not disclose the results
of the measurements for the individual samples. Inokuti col. 4, l. 55–col. 5,
l. 55. Consequently, the effect of each of the irradiation parameters on iron
loss, including the effect of beam acceleration voltage, beam current, and
irradiation line spacing, cannot be ascertained from Inokuti’s disclosures.
And although Inokuti’s experimental examples describe irradiating steel
sheets with electron beams using different sets of irradiation conditions,
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

15
Inokuti does not disclose the effect of particular irradiation parameters—
including beam acceleration voltage, beam current, and irradiation line
spacing—on iron loss for the exemplary steel sheets. Inokuti col. 7, l. 45–
col. 12, l. 2.
The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Inokuti of
measuring a thickness and flux density of a first steel sheet, determining an
irradiation energy per unit scanning length of a second steel sheet having a
thickness of 0.23 millimeters and the same flux density as the first steel
sheet that produces a minimum amount of iron loss from the second steel
sheet, and adjusting an irradiation energy per unit scanning length of an
electron beam to satisfy Expression (1) recited in claim 1. The Examiner
also does not identify any disclosure in Inokuti of measuring a thickness and
flux density of a first steel sheet having a thickness of 0.23 mm or more,
determining a line spacing of a second steel sheet having a thickness of 0.23
millimeters and the same flux density as the first steel sheet that produces a
minimum amount of iron loss from the second steel sheet, and adjusting a
line spacing of an electron beam to satisfy Expression (2) recited in claim 3.
Nor does the Examiner explain why Inokuti’s disclosure of irradiating
a grain-oriented steel sheet using different beam acceleration voltage, beam
current, and irradiation line spacing would have suggested the measuring,
determining, and adjusting steps recited in claims 1 and 3. In particular, the
Examiner does not explain why the relied-upon disclosures of Inokuti would
have suggested adjusting an irradiation energy per unit scanning length of an
electron beam to satisfy Expression (1) recited in claim 1, and would have
suggested adjusting a line spacing of an electron beam to satisfy Expression
(2) recited in claim 3.
Appeal 2019-005533
Application 14/439,112

16
We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inokuti.
CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected

35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3 112, first
paragraph
Enablement 1–3
1–3 112,
second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 1–3
1–3 103(a) Inokuti 1–3
Overall
Outcome
1–3

REVERSED