Ex Parte Castle et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 3, 201613290667 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/290,667 11/07/2011 Lea Kennard Castle 54549 7590 05/05/2016 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. PA17879U; 67097-1619PUS1 8791 EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2016 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 LEA KENNARD CASTLE, STEVEN J. BULLIED, and MARIA ARCEO HERRING Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 In our opinion below, we refer to the Specification filed November 7, 2011 (Spec.), Final Office Action mailed February 19, 2013 (Final), the Appeal Brief filed August 7, 2013 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed October 4, 2013 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed December 4, 2013 (Reply Br.). Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants2 appeal the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Piearcey3 and reject claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Piearcey. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The claims are directed to a metal casting apparatus. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A metal casting apparatus comprising: a feeder for providing a molten metallic material; a mold including a sprue and a component cavity, the sprue being arranged to receive the molten metallic material from the feeder and the component cavity being arranged to receive the molten metallic material from the sprue; and a starter arranged adjacent the component cavity and operable to induce a first grain orientation upon solidification of the molten metallic material, and wherein the sprue includes an aborter arranged to induce a second grain orientation upon solidification of the molten metallic material. Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 7. OPINION A. Anticipation of Claims 1-10 and 19-23 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. 3 US 3,494,709, issued Feb. 10, 1970. 2 Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 In arguing against the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 19-23, Appellants argue claims 1, 10, 21, 22, and 23 separately, and claims 3 and 7 as a group. We select claims 1, 3, 10, 21, 22, and 23 as representative for deciding the issues on appeal. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that the metal casting apparatus Piearcey depicts in Figures 1-6 includes structural features meeting the requirements of claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner finds Piearcey describes an apparatus with a feeder (top of 58), a mold (52) including a sprue (top of 50's) and a component cavity. Final 2. Claim 1 requires the sprue include "an aborter arranged to induce a second grain orientation upon solidification of the molten metallic material." The Examiner reproduces Piearcey's Figure 5 annotated to show the location of a structure meeting the requirements of the claimed aborter. Annotated Figure 5 is reproduced below: 3 Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 Annotated Figure 5 is a schematic vertical section of an embodiment of Piearcey's metal casting mold with the structure the Examiner finds is the aborter and the transverse and vertical sections of mold cavities 50 found to be a sprue Appellants contend that the structure the Examiner finds is the aborter cannot be the claimed aborter because it is part of the bottom of feeder 58 and is not included in the sprue. Appeal Br. 3. According to the Specification, "[t]he term 'sprue' refers to any feeder passages, runners, risers or the like in the mold 26 that communicate molten metallic material and also refers to the solidified material in such passages after the casting process." Spec. i-f 15. Thus, the "sprue" includes all manner of feeder passages within the molding apparatus. For instance, the portions of Piearcey's molding apparatus just below the opening of feeder 58 are feeder passages that communicate molten metallic material and are definable as sprues. Piearcey's discussion of Figure 6 supports such a finding. Piearcey states that a sprue 67 is formed in pouring mouth 66. Piearcey, col. 6, 11. 30-33. Thus, pouring mouth 66 itself is a sprue. Likewise, central mouth 58 may be said to include a sprue as well as a feeder. Appellants argue that Piearcey considers element 5 8 to be distinct from elements 50 because the reference describes mold cavities 50 as "connected with" the central mouth 58. Reply Br. 1. But the fact that Piearcey uses different language than Appellants to define different parts of the apparatus does not mean the structure is different. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.Cir.1998). Giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation taking into account 4 Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 definitions and other guidance from the Specification, Appellants' claim 1 sweeps in the prior art because the claim does not distinguish the structure of the feeder from that of the sprue in a manner that differentiates the claimed apparatus from that of Piearcey. We sustain the Examiner's finding of anticipation as to claim 1. Claim 3 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further requires the sprue include "a vertical section and a transverse section relative to the vertical section and the aborter comprises a downwardly extending cavity from the transverse section." Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 7. As shown in the Examiner's annotated Figure 5, the Examiner finds the sprue contains transverse and vertical sections. Final 3. Appellants contend that the portions of cavity 50 the Examiner points to are part of cavity 50 and, in the alternative, Figure 5 is ambiguous as to whether that portion of cavity 50 is a sprue portion, and the Examiner's interpretation is, therefore, arbitrary and unsupported by the reference. Appeal Br. 5. The problem is not that the reference is ambiguous; it is that defining the location of the sprue versus the location of the cavity does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the apparatus of Piearcey. This is because the location of the sprue and component cavity is merely a matter of what one ends up using as the product component and what becomes molding waste (sprue). That is a matter of intended use, and it is the claim that is arbitrary. Because the distinction of the claim is arbitrary, the claim sweeps in the prior art. As shown in the Examiner's 5 Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 annotated Figure 5, the "aborter" downwardly extends from the transverse passageway leading to the vertical portion of cavity 50. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and the rejection of claim 7, which was grouped with claim 3. Claim 10 Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further requires the sprue be "arranged to feed the molten metallic material from the bottom of the component cavity." Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 8. We agree with Appellants that the passageway the Examiner finds is a sprue, as shown in annotated Figure 5, feeds the material from the top, not the bottom of the component cavity. Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner finds that the sprue at the top of cavity 50 fills the bottom of the cavity 52 first, but the Examiner's determination that this filling meets the claimed structure fails because the claim requires a structure that is "arranged to feed from the bottom." To feed from the bottom, the sprue must connect to the bottom. Piearcey's passageway connects to the top. We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10. Claim 21 Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and further requires the aborter be "arranged intermediate of a pair of open ends of the sprue." Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner finds that "the aborter (bottom portion of 58) is located between (intermediate) a pair of open ends of the sprue (top of reference number 50's)." Ans. 11. 6 Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 Appellants contend that the alleged aborter is between two sprues that feed different cavities 50, not "intermediate of a pair of open ends of the sprue." Claim 21 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellants. Claim 21 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 defines the sprue as a structure between the feeder and the cavity. See claim 1 ("the sprue being arranged to receive the molten metallic material from the feeder and the component cavity being arranged to receive the molten metallic material from the sprue"). It is this sprue that must contain a pair of opening ends and an aborter intermediate the pair of open ends. The claim does not encompass an aborter between two sprues. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 21. Claim 22 Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and requires the feeder be a pourcup and a portion of the sprue extend between the aborter and the pourcup. The Examiner points to no portion of a sprue that is between a pourcup and the aborter. Final 3-4; Ans. 11. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 22. Claim 23 Claim 23 reads: 23. A metal casting apparatus comprising: a pourcup for providing a molten metallic material; a mold including a sprue and a component cavity, the sprue being arranged to receive the molten metallic material from the pourcup and the component cavity being arranged to receive the molten metallic material from the sprue; and 7 Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 a starter arranged adjacent the component cavity and operable to induce a first grain orientation upon solidification of the molten metallic material, and wherein the sprue includes a first sprue passage, a second sprue passage, and an aborter arranged to induce a second grain orientation upon solidification of the molten metallic material, the first sprue passage being arranged to receive the molten metallic material from the pourcup and communicate the molten metallic material to the aborter, the aborter being arranged to communicate the molten metallic material to the second sprue passage, and the second sprue passage being arranged to communicate the molten metallic material to the component cavity. Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 8. Claim 23 requires an aborter between two sprue passages. The first sprue passage communicates molten metallic material between a pourcup and the aborter. The second sprue passage communicates molten metallic material between the aborter and component cavity. The Examiner finds that the tops of the two cavities 50 are the first and second sprues of claim 23, respectively. Ans. 9. But the claim requires the aborter be between the two sprue passages with the pourcup at one end and the component cavity at the other end. The Examiner has not established that Piearcey's aborter (bottom of 58) is in a location capable of receiving and communicating molten metallic material in the manner claimed. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 23. B. The Rejection of Claim 11 as obvious Appellants do not add any arguments directed to the rejection of claim 11 over and above those we already addressed in our review of the rejection 8 Appeal2014-001865 Application 13/290,667 of claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 11 for the reasons we gave for the rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSION We sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Piearcey. We sustain the rejection of claim 11 as obvious over Piearcey. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 21-23. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation