Ex Parte Bullied et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

12940075 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/940,075 11/05/2010 Steven J. Bullied
54549 7590 09/23/2016
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.
0012840U;
67097-1376PUS1
6715
EXAMINER
YUEN, JACKY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN J. BULLIED, CARL R. VERNER, and
GAURAVM. PATEL
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 6-8, 10, 11, and 18-25. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 United Technologies Corporation is identified as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellants claim a die casting system. Independent claims 6, 18, and
23 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced
below from Appellants' Claims Appendix, with bold added to identify the
limitations that are the focus of Appellants' arguments:
6. A die casting system, comprising:
a die comprised of a plurality of die components that
define a die cavity;
a shot tube in fluid communication with said die cavity,
wherein said shot tube includes an integrated melting unit
configured to heat a charge of material from a position inside of
said shot tube, said shot tube including a first sleeve of a first
material and a second sleeve of a second, different material;
a shot tube plunger moveable within said shot tube to
communicate said charge of material into said die cavity; and
wherein each of said die, said shot tube, said
integrated melting unit and said shot tube plunger are
positioned within a vacuum chamber.
18. A die casting system, comprising:
a die that defines a die cavity;
a shot tube in fluid communication with said die cavity,
wherein said shot tube includes an integrated melting unit
configured to heat a charge of material from a position inside of
said shot tube without preheating said charge of material
from a position outside of said shot tube, said shot tube
including a first sleeve of a first material and a second sleeve of
a second, different material; and
a shot tube plunger moveable within said shot tube to
communicate said charge of material into said die cavity.
23. A die casting system, comprising:
2
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
a die that defines a die cavity;
a shot tube in fluid communication with said die cavity,
said shot tube including a first sleeve that extends inside of said
die and a second sleeve that is disposed outside of said die,
wherein said first sleeve is a graphite sleeve and said second
sleeve is a ceramic sleeve;
a gate that connects said shot tube to said die cavity;
an integrated melting unit that includes an induction coil
positioned around said second sleeve and configured to heat a
charge of material from a position inside of said second sleeve;
a power source that powers said induction coil;
a cooled copper shot tube plunger moveable within
said shot tube to communicate said charge of material into
said die cavity; and
a vacuum chamber that includes a vacuum source that
applies a vacuum within said vacuum chamber, wherein said
die, said shot tube, said integrated melting unit and said cooled
copper shot tube plunger are disposed within said vacuum
chamber.
App. Br. 11-13.
References
Fujino et al. us 4,842,038 June27, 1989
("Fujino")
Mueller us 5,048,592 Sept. 1 7, 1991
Linden, Jr. et al. us 5, 195,572 Mar. 23, 1993
("Linden")
Taniguchi et al. US 6,189,600 Bl Feb.20,2001
("Taniguchi")
Perrella et al. US 6,354,359 B2 Mar. 12, 2002
("Perrella")
Muramatsu et al. US 2007/0215306 Al Sept. 20, 2007
("Muramatsu")
3
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
Rejections
1. Claims 6, 7, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujino, Taniguchi, and Linden. Final Action 3-5.2
2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fujino, Taniguchi, Linden, and Muramatsu. Id. at 5---6.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fujino, Taniguchi, Linden, and Perrella. Id. at 6-7.
4. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujino and Linden. Id. at 7-8.
5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fujino, Linden, and Taniguchi. Id. at 9.
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fujino, Linden, and Mueller. Id. at 9-10.
7. Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujino, Taniguchi, Linden, Muramatsu, and Perrella. Id.
at 10-14.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' arguments are directed to independent claims 6, 18, and
23 and dependent claim 8 only. Appellants present no separate argument
regarding the other claims. See App. Br. 3-9. As a consequence, the
remaining dependent claims stand or fall together with their parent
independent claims, and we confine our discussion to claims 6, 8, 18, and
23.
2 Final Action mailed June 19, 2014.
4
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
Claim 6
The Examiner finds that Fujino discloses a die casting system
embodying all limitations of claim 6, except "said shot tube including a first
sleeve of a first material and a second sleeve of a second, different material"
and "wherein each of said die, said shot tube, said integrated melting unit
and said shot tube plunger are positioned within a vacuum chamber." Final
Action 3--4. The Examiner finds that these limitations are taught by Linden
and Taniguchi, respectively, and provides a reason for modifying the die
casting system of Fujino to include each of these features. Id. at 4--5.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed modification of Fujino
in view of Taniguchi would render Fujino's apparatus unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose and offer no benefit. App. Br. 4--6. Appellants
additionally argue that the proposed modification of Fujino in view of
Linden would cause "significant problems" that would lead a person of
ordinary skill in the art away from the proposed modification. Id. at 6-7.
For the reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below,
we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
Appellants argue that one of the main objectives of Fujino is
simultaneous melting and injection, which would not be possible if the die
were under vacuum because the vacuum chamber would have to be broken
to remove each casting from the die. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Appellants'
argument is unsupported by evidence and does not persuasively refute the
Examiner's finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
positioned the entire die casting apparatus in a vacuum chamber in order to
prevent formation of an oxide film on the molten metal. Final Action 4;
5
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
Ans. 3. The Examiner's finding is supported by Fujino, which recognizes
that formation of oxides on molten metal surfaces degrades productivity and
product quality. Fujino, 1 :45-53. The Examiner's finding is further
supported by Taniguchi, which discloses that, for the purpose of preventing
the molten metal from forming an oxide film, the entire die casting
apparatus, including the casting mold, is maintained in a vacuum. Taniguchi
8:25-30.
Appellants do not direct us to evidence in Fujino, Taniguchi, or
elsewhere in the record to support their argument that the vacuum chamber
would have to be broken to remove each casting from the die. App. Br. 4;
Reply Br. 2. Taniguchi discloses removing a cast article from a casting
mold disposed in a vacuum chamber, Taniguchi, 8:25-30, 9:20-23, but does
not mention breaking the vacuum during this removal step. While attorney
arguments are helpful when directing us to evidence in the record, the
arguments themselves do not constitute evidence. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney argument cannot take the place of
evidence).
We are also not persuaded that simultaneous melting and injection is a
"main objective" of Fujino, as argued by Appellants. App. Br. 4; Reply Br.
2. Appellants explain that Fujino achieves this objective with a staged
injection cycle that utilizes two injection sleeves. App. Br. 4 (citing Fujino
4:3-12). As correctly noted by the Examiner, however, Fujino also
discloses embodiments utilizing a single injection sleeve. Ans. 4; Fujino
4:30-33, 6: 13-34, Fig. 5. As discussed above, Appellants fail to provide
evidence sufficient to support their assertion that simultaneous melting and
injection could not be achieved by placing the entire die casting apparatus in
6
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
a vacuum chamber. Even if we accepted this assertion, however, we are not
persuaded that the proposed modification runs counter to Fujino, which
discloses embodiments that have a single injection sleeve enabling
sequential, but not simultaneous, melting and injection. Fujino 4:30-33,
6: 13-34, Fig. 5.
Appellants argue that "the preheating, melting and injection sections
of Fujino are already placed in a vacuum generating chamber" and
"[t]herefore, there is no risk of the molten metal of Fujino forming an oxide
film and the proposed modification offers no benefit." App. Br. 6. We
disagree. The Examiner finds that positioning the entire die casting
apparatus in a vacuum chamber provides a benefit, namely preventing
formation of an oxide film on the molten metal. Final Action 4; Ans. 3. The
Examiner's finding is supported by Taniguchi, which discloses this benefit.
Taniguchi, 8:25-30. Although Fujino discloses that thermal efficiency can
be improved by placing sections of the die casting apparatus in a vacuum,
Fujino 4: 16-21, Taniguchi teaches that placing the entire apparatus,
including the casting mold (die), in a vacuum provides an additional benefit.
Taniguchi, 8:25-30 (vacuum prevents formation of oxide film on molten
metal); see also Fujino, 1 :45-53 (oxide films "degrade the productivity and
quality of the products").
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that modification of
Fujino in view of Linden would lead one of ordinary skill in the art away
from the Examiner's proposed modification. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants rely on Linden's disclosure that "high pressure stresses ... have
caused significant problems when ceramics have been employed in die
casting machines in the past." Linden, 6: 18-20. Despite these problems,
7
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
Linden discloses embodiments in which the injection sleeve is composed, in
whole or in part, of ceramic material. Id. at 6: 11-26. Linden teaches
advantages of such injection sleeves, including prolonged life, material cost
savings, and reduced manufacturing cost. Id. at 6:2-13. Linden states that a
pour hole in the injection sleeve avoids high pressure stresses that have
caused problems in the past, id. at 6: 13-20, but does not indicate that a pour
hole is the only way to avoid high pressure stresses. We are not persuaded
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to design a ceramic
injection sleeve without a pour hole that avoids the problems noted in
Linden.
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Appellants' claim
6 is directed to a die casting system comprising known components,
including a vacuum chamber and a shot tube having first and second sleeves
made of different materials, where each of these components performs its
established function, and the combination yields no more than one would
expect from such an arrangement. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007).
Based on the foregoing, the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of
claim 6 is sustained.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and recites: "wherein said first sleeve
is a graphite sleeve and said second sleeve is a ceramic sleeve." App. Br.
11.
The Examiner finds that Muramatsu teaches a die casting system
including a graphite sleeve. Final Action 6 (citing Muramatsu i-f 35). The
8
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
Muramatsu's graphite sleeve with Linden's ceramic sleeve to obtain the
advantages disclosed in each reference. Id.
Appellants argue that Muramatsu' s disclosed benefits can be achieved
only by using a single graphite sleeve and only if the plunger tip is also
made of graphite. App. Br. 8.
For the reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below,
we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 8.
Appellants' argument is unsupported by evidence and does not
persuasively refute the Examiner's conclusion that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined Muramatsu's graphite sleeve with Linden's
ceramic sleeve to obtain the disclosed advantages of each material. Final
Action 6; Ans. 6-7.
The Examiner's conclusion is supported by Linden, which discloses a
two-piece shot sleeve composed of two sections, both of which are
composed of high temperature resistant material. Linden 3:56-4:4. In one
embodiment, one sleeve section is composed of steel and another sleeve
section is composed, in whole or in part, of ceramic. Id. at 4: 1--4, 6:2-26.
According to Linden, ceramic prolongs the life of the sleeve. Id. at 6: 11-13.
The Examiner's conclusion is also supported by Muramatsu, which discloses
a die casting machine including a sleeve, which is preferably composed of
graphite. Muramatsu i-fi-13, 15, 28, 33. Muramatsu discloses a number of
reasons to select graphite as the material for the sleeve, including thermal
conductivity, non-reactivity with molten metal, laminar flow of the metal,
and slidable property of graphite. Muramatsu i135.
9
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that ivluramatsu' s
disclosed benefits can only be achieved when graphite is used to make a
one-piece sleeve. Muramatsu's disclosed reasons for selecting graphite
relate to properties of the material, not the particular configuration of the
sleeve as one-piece or two-piece. Muramatsu ,-r 3 5 (discussing thermal
conductivity, non-reactivity, laminar flow, and slidable property of graphite
sleeve). Appellants do not direct us to evidence or technical reasoning
sufficient to persuade us that the Examiner errs in relying on the properties
of graphite, as disclosed in Muramatsu, as providing reasons for selecting
the same material for use in a two-piece sleeve, as taught by Linden.
To the extent that Appellants argue that Muramatsu' s benefits can
only be obtained when graphite is used both for the sleeve and the plunger
tip, that argument does not support patentability of Appellants' claim 8,
which does not specify the material for the plunger tip.
Based on the foregoing, the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 8 is sustained.
Claim 18
Appellants refer back to their arguments in support of claim 6
regarding modification of Fujino to include the two-piece shot tube of
Linden. App. Br. 8. For the reasons discussed above, these arguments are
not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim
18 over Fujino and Linden because the Fujino system includes a preheater
and is not capable of melting without preheating the charge material. App.
Br. 8-9.
10
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
For the reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below,
we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 18.
Claim 18 recites: "an integrated melting unit configured to heat a
charge of material from a position inside of said shot tube without
preheating said charge of material from a position outside of said shot tube."
App. Br. 12. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Fujino
discloses an integrated melting unit in the form of heaters 31 shown in
Fujino Figure 1. Final Action 7 (citing Fujino 3 :20-30). Appellants also do
not dispute the Examiner's finding that Fujino's heaters 31 are configured to
heat a charge of material from a position inside of said shot tube. Id. (citing
3:40-50). According to Fujino, heaters 31 may be induction heaters
mounted on the outer surface of the injection sleeve-the same type of
structure as disclosed in Appellants' Specification for performing the recited
function. Compare Fujino 3 :22-24, with Spec. i-f 31 ("the integrated melting
unit 225 includes an induction coil 227 mounted about the shot tube 224").
The Examiner is correct that claim 18' s recitation, "without
preheating said charge of material from a position outside of said shot tube,"
is a functional limitation. Final Action 7; Ans. 8. The Examiner's finding
that Fujino discloses structure (heaters 31) equivalent to Appellants'
disclosed structure is sufficient to shift the burden to Appellants to show that
Fujino's structure is not capable of performing the recited function. In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants do not provide
evidence or technical reasoning sufficient to persuade us that Fujino's
disclosed heaters 31 are not capable of heating a charge of material without
preheating. The opposite finding is supported by Fujino, which discloses an
11
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
embodiment including induction heaters, where a preheater is optional.
Fujino, 4:54--56, 5:64--68 (Fig. 3 embodiment includes heaters 35 and 36,
e.g., induction heaters, where billet is supplied directly to injection sleeve
without preheating).
Based on the foregoing, the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 18 is sustained.
Claim 23
Appellants refer back to their arguments in support of claims 6 and 8
regarding the Examiner's proposed modifications of Fujino in view of
Taniguchi, Linden, and Muramatsu. App. Br. 9. For the reasons discussed
above, these arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants argue that claim 23 is not obvious for the additional reason
that it recites a cooled copper shot tube plunger that would not achieve any
of the benefits detailed by Muramatsu when used with a graphite shaft. Id.
For the reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below,
we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 23.
Appellants' argument is unsupported by evidence or technical
reasoning sufficient to identify error in the Examiner's rejection. We are not
persuaded that at least some of the benefits of graphite identified by
Muramatsu-thermal conductivity, non-reactivity, laminar flow, and
slidable property---could not be obtained when combining a graphite
injection sleeve with a cooled copper shot tube plunger. Ans. 9-10.
12
Appeal2015-005799
Application 12/940,075
Based on the foregoing, the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 23 is sustained.
CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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) (1).
AFFIRMED
13