Ex Parte Dittmer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

13580885 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/580,885 08/23/2012 Bjorn Dittmer
86528 7590 08/29/2018
Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1650
Austin, TX 78701
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.
03900.117344 8371
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HUNG D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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):
trosson@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
dallen@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BJORN DITTMER, ARNO DOBBELER, KLAUS KRUGER,
SASCHA LEADBETTER, THOMAS MATSCHULLAT, and
DETLEF RIEGER
Appeal2018-000309
Application 13/580,885 1
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's adverse decision as to the patentability of claims 1-18. Final
Office Action (January 14, 2016) (hereinafter "Final Act."); Advisory
Action (July 18, 2016) (hereinafter "Adv. Act."). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Bjorn Dittmer et al. ("Appellants") identify Primetals Technologies
Germany GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (September 19,
2016) (hereinafter "Appeal Br."), at 2.
Appeal2018-000309
Application 13/580,885
The claimed subject matter relates to operation of an arc furnace.
Specification (August 23, 2012) (hereinafter "Spec."), at 1.2 The Examiner
rejected the claimed subject matter as obvious over the prior art. Appellants
contest the Examiner's underlying finding as to the scope and content of one
of the prior art references relied upon in the obviousness determination. For
the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
finding is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly,
we REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the
disputed claim language emphasized in italics.
1. A method for operating an arc furnace, comprising:
generating an arc for melting metal using at least one
electrode, the arc having a first radiation power based on a first
preselected set of operating parameters,
operating the arc furnace according to a predefined
operating program based on an expected process sequence,
monitoring to detect whether an deviation exists between
an actual process sequence and the expected process sequence,
and
if the deviation exists:
specifying a modified second radiation power based
at least on an isosurface associated with the arc, the
isosurface calculated as a function of a plurality of
actuating variable associated with the arc, and
2 Citations to "Spec." herein refer to the Substitute Specification for National
Phase Submission Clean Version filed on August 23, 2012.
2
Appeal2018-000309
Application 13/580,885
determining a modified second set of operating
parameters based on the modified second radiation power.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix). Independent claims 13 and 14 are directed
to a control device for an arc furnace and recite limitations similar to the
disputed limitation in method claim 1. Id. at 11-12 (Claims Appendix).
Poppe et al. ("Poppe")
Ma et al. ("Ma")
Barker
EVIDENCE
us 6,104,744
US 6,603,795 B2
WO 2006/089315 Al
REJECTIONS 3
Aug. 15, 2000
Aug. 5,2003
Aug.24,2006
The Final Office Action includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-6 and 8-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Barker and Poppe.
2. Claim 7 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Barker, Poppe, and Ma.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Barker discloses many of the features of
claims 1, 13, and 14, but does not disclose ( 1) if a deviation exists,
3 The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite due to insufficient antecedent basis for claim terms
recited in claims 1, 3, 13, and 14. Final Act. 3. In response, Appellants filed
an amendment to these claims, and the Examiner entered the amendment.
Response to Final Office Action (March 23, 2016); Adv. Act. 1. The
Examiner did not explicitly state that the amendments to claims 1, 3, 13, and
14 overcame the indefiniteness rejection. Adv. Act. 2. This rejection was
not discussed in either the Appeal Brief or the Examiner's Answer.
Examiner's Answer (January 11, 2017) (hereinafter "Ans."). Because the
status of this rejection is unclear, and no arguments as to this rejection were
presented by either Appellants or the Examiner, we do not reach this
rejection in this appeal.
3
Appeal2018-000309
Application 13/580,885
specifying a modified second radiation power based at least on an isosurface
associated with the arc, where the isosurface is calculated as a function of a
plurality of actuating variable associated with the arc, and (2) determining a
modified second set of operating parameters based on the modified second
radiation power. Final Act. 4-5. The Examiner relied on Poppe for teaching
these features missing from Barker. Id. at 5 (citing Poppe, col. 3, 11. 46-52,
col. 4, 1. 57 - col. 5, 1. 39, col. 7, 11. 1-14); Adv. Act. 2 (further citing Poppe,
col. 5, 1. 40 - col. 6, 1. 9); Ans. 4 (further citing Poppe, col. 7, 11. 36--44).
Appellants contest the Examiner's finding that Poppe discloses the
use of an isosurface. Appeal Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3. Appellants point to the
Specification for a description of the claimed isosurface. Appeal Br. 5-6.
The Specification describes an isosurface for a specific strand with
reference to Figure 4, reproduced below:
FIG 4 !sosurfaca o! same ra(Hation power for strand 1 in the impedance space
"Figure 4 shows an impedance space containing a surface, wherein
elements of the surface always support one and the same constant radiation
power for a specific strand." Spec. 9. The Specification describes:
4
Appeal2018-000309
Application 13/580,885
For a given transformer and choke stage, a three-dimensional
space is spanned by the impedance setpoint values as remaining
actuating variables of the regulating system. Each axis of said
space is spanned by the impedance setpoint value of a strand. A
quantitatively determined radiation power for each arc can now
be calculated for every point in this space. If a quantitative
radiation power is now specified for an arc, all points in the
three-dimensional impedance space that correspond to said
radiation power can be represented as an isosurface of equal
radiation power; see Figure 4. In this case Zsi denotes the
impedance setpoint value for strand i, and