Ex Parte Flehmig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

13524545 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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.
13/524,545 06/15/2012 Thomas Flehmig 509224 4775
53609 7590 02/21/2017
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
TOLAN, EDWARD THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS FLEHMIG and
KONSTANTINOS SAVVAS
Appeal 2015-002297
Application 13/524,545
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—8 and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe
AG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002297
Application 13/524,545
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and device for producing a half­
shell part. Claims 1 and 18 are the only independent claims. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below:
1. Method for producing a half-shell part with a drawing punch
and a drawing die, wherein a single work step the drawing punch
is advanced into the drawing die, a sheet metal blank is
preformed into a sheet metal raw part with at least one base
section, at least one frame section and optionally a flange section,
wherein during the preforming with the drawing punch a material
excess is introduced into the base section and the frame section
of the sheet metal raw part, and the sheet metal raw part is
finished to form a half-shell part and is calibrated, wherein the
sheet metal raw part is trimmed in the single work step,
preferably using a cutting edge arranged on the drawing punch.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Shiokawa
Saitou
Hielscher
Flehmig
Nakane
US 7,171,838 B2
US 7,454,940 B2
US 8,261,591 B2
DE 102007059251 A1
JP 63264222 A
Feb. 6, 2007
Nov. 25, 2008
Sept. 11,2012
June 10, 2009
Nov. 1, 1988
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Shiokawa.
2. Claims 1—8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hielscher and Saitou.
2
Appeal 2015-002297
Application 13/524,545
3. Claims 1—5, 7, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flehmig and Nakane.
OPINION
Rejection 2
We address Rejection 2 first, because it is dispositive. Appellants
argue claims 1—8 and 18 as a group. Appeal Br. 6—9. We select claim 1 as
representative, and claims 2—8 and 18 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Hielscher discloses all the steps of claim 1
with one exception, namely, “that there is a[n] [jexcess [material] thickness
present”. Final Act. see also Ans. 5. The Examiner turns next to
Saitou, finding that Saitou teaches “that it is known to create an increase in
thickness of a frame section (42) and a base section (44) of a blank (W) that
is calibrated in the same working step,” citing Saitou Figures 3 and 4 and
column 8, lines 51-55. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. Based on these findings, the
Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art at the time of the invention to create an increase in the thickness of the
blank of Hielscher as taught by Saitou in order to prevent a base section
from cracking or buckling during calibration.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5
(“obvious to increase a thickness ... to increase rigidity in a part.”)
Appellants argue that there is no reason to provide extra material as
claim 1 requires because in Hielscher the “problems [of cracking or buckling
of the base section] appear to be non-existent.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply
Br. 6. Appellants point out that Hielscher teaches hot forming high strength
steels while Saitou relates to a multistep operation that introduces plastic
3
Appeal 2015-002297
Application 13/524,545
flow into an annular convex region to increase its rigidity. Appeal Br. 8.
But beyond stating that Hielscher appears not to have a rigidity problem,
Appellants never explain why the Examiner was wrong to respond that “[i]t
would have been obvious to increase a thickness of a base and frame portion
in Hielscher as taught by Saitou to increase rigidity in a part (Saitou, col. 8,
line 55).” Ans. 5.
We have not been persuaded the Examiner erred. The Supreme Court
has advised “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Saitou teaches how to increase rigidity in a part,
and Appellants have offered no evidence that applying this same technique
to Hielscher’s process would be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as obvious in view of Hielscher and Saitou.
Because we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims
1—8 and 18 over Hielscher and Saitou, we need not address Rejections 1 and
3. See In re Cleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching
other rejections after upholding an anticipation rejection).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8 and 18
is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2015-002297
Application 13/524,545
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5