Ex Parte Bochiechio et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2019

12940263 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/940,263 11/05/2010 Mario P. Bochiechio
54549 7590 02/15/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
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.
67097-1374PUS1;56116US1 7102
EXAMINER
YUEN,JACKY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIO P. BOCHIECHIO, DILIP M. SHAH,
LEA KENNARD CASTLE, DOUGLAS M. BERCZIK,
JOHN JOSEPH MARCIN, and CARL R. VERNER
Appeal2018-005279
Application 12/940,263
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY R. SNAY, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1--4, 20, 21, and 30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed November 5, 2010; Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") dated May 3, 2017; Appellants' Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed December 4, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
February 23, 2018; and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed April 23,
2018.
2 Appellants identify United Technologies Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005279
Application 12/940,263
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to die casting high temperature
materials. Spec. ,r 1. Claim I-the sole independent claim on appeal-
reads as follows:
1. A die casting system, comprising:
a molten metal comprised of a non-nickel based material,
wherein the non-nickel based material includes one of a high
temperature aluminum alloy, a copper based alloy, molybdenum,
tungsten, niobium, or a refractory metal; and
a die comprised of a plurality of die components that
define a die cavity configured to receive the molten metal
comprised of the non-nickel based material, wherein at least one
of the plurality of die components comprises a material that is
not reactive with the molten metal and has a melting temperature
above 815 degrees Celsius, and the material includes one of a
nickel based super alloy, a cobalt based super alloy, and a
refractory metal based alloy selected from a group consisting of
rehenium, niobium, and tantalum.
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
unpatentable over Schirra. 3
II. Claims 1 and 20 alternatively stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Schirra and Cooper. 4
III. Claims 2--4 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Schirra and Grierson. 5
3 EP 1 013 363 Al, published June 28, 2000.
4 US 3,201,835, issued August 24, 1965.
5 US 3,988,118, issued October 26, 1976.
2
Appeal2018-005279
Application 12/940,263
IV. Claims 2--4 and 30 alternatively stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schirra, Grierson, and Cooper.
V. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schirra and Nakano. 6
VI. Claim 21 alternatively stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schirra, Nakano, and Cooper.
OPINION
Rejection I
Relevant to Appellants' arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that
Schirra describes a die casting system that includes a die composed of
IN 100--a material which the Examiner finds is identified in the
Specification as a nickel based super alloy that satisfies the claimed
properties. Final Act. 2-3; Spec. ,r 28. The Examiner also finds that Schirra
describes providing molten superalloys and titanium based alloys as
materials to be cast, which the Examiner finds are non-nickel based
refractory metals. Ans. 6. Separately, the Examiner finds that the molten
metal recitation in claim 1 constitutes identification of a material to be
worked upon by the die, and on that basis does not impart patentability to the
claimed die system. Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that the molten metal recitation in claim 1 is an
affirmatively recited component of the claimed die system which the
Examiner improperly ignored. App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 2-3. However,
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Schirra describes
refractory metals which meet the claimed molten metal recitation. A
6 US 4,798,237, issued January 17, 1989.
3
Appeal2018-005279
Application 12/940,263
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding. See
Schirra ,r 33 ("[T]itanium alloys are also employed, and generally have a
melting temperature in excess of 3000°F."). The Specification characterizes
titanium alloys as non-nickel based refractory metals. Spec. ,r 18 ("Example
molten metals capable of being used to die cast a component 55 include ...
titanium alloys ... or other refractory metals.").
Because Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's finding that
Schirra describes the claimed casting die system, including the recited
molten metal, we need not reach the Examiner's separate determination that
the recited molten metal constitutes material to be worked upon by the
claimed system.
Rejection I as applied to claim 1 is sustained. Appellants do not
separately argue claim 20. Accordingly, Rejection I as applied to claim 20
also is sustained.
Rejection II
With regard to Rejection II, the Examiner finds that Cooper teaches
that titanium, steel, cobalt, molybdenum, and tungsten are high melting point
refractory metals suitable for die casting. Final Act. 7. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to use any of those materials in
Schirra's die casting system in light of their known suitability for die
casting. Final Act. 7-8.
Appellants' argument that "Schirra is specifically designed to die cast
parts made of nickel based, cobalt based, iron based, or titanium based
alloys," and that "[t]his intended purpose would be completely frustrated if
Schirra were modified to die cast using the materials of Cooper" is not
4
Appeal2018-005279
Application 12/940,263
persuasive. App. Br. 5---6. First, Appellants argument acknowledges that
titanium is taught by both Cooper and Schirra. As such, it is unclear how
use of titanium would frustrate any purpose of Schirra. Moreover, we are
not persuaded that Schirra' s disclosure restricts the scope of materials for die
casting in a way that would exclude the die casting materials taught by
Cooper. To the contrary, Schirra states that the disclosed invention "is
broadly applicable to high melting temperature materials such as nickel
base, cobalt base and iron base superalloys and titanium base alloys used for
various applications, and is not intended to be limited to any particular
superalloy or to gas tubine engine parts." Schirra ,r 30 ( emphasis added).
Appellants' argument that the Examiner failed to explain why one of
ordinary skill would desire to replace the die casting metals of Schirra with
those of Cooper, App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3, also is unpersuasive of reversible
error. The Examiner explains that Schirra is directed to die casting of high
melting temperature metals, and Cooper identifies high melting temperature
metals suitable for casting. Ans. 6. "The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
Rejection II also is sustained.
Rejections III-VI
Appellants do not separately argue any of Rejections III-VI except to
rely on the arguments presented in connection with Rejections I and II.
Accordingly, we sustain each of Rejections III-VI for the reasons given
above.
5
Appeal2018-005279
Application 12/940,263
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 20, 21, and 30 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).
AFFIRMED
6