Ex Parte Gil Otin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 201612599166 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/599, 166 03/23/2010 23280 7590 06/30/2016 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th A venue 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Javier Gil Otin 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. 704.1005 7418 EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1733 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 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): ddk@ddkpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAVIER GIL OTIN and ANTOINE MOULIN Appeal2015-000226 Application 12/599,166 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-000226 Application 12/599,166 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellants' invention is directed to the manufacture of thin cold- rolled and annealed steel sheet having a strength greater than 1200 MPa and an elongation at break greater than 8% (Spec. 1 :5-8). Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added): 1. A cold-rolled and annealed steel sheet with a strength greater than 1200 MPa, the composition by weight comprising: 0.10% :S c :S 0.25% 1%:SMn:S3% Al 2: 0.010% Si :S 2.990% s :S 0.015% P :S 0.1% and 0. 004 :S N :S 0. 008%, it being understood that 1 % :S Si +Al :S 3%, the composition optionally comprising: 0.05% :S v :S 0.15% B :S 0.005% Mo :S 0.25% Cr :S 1.65%, it being understood that Cr+ 3Mo 2: 0.3%, and Ti in an amount so that Ti/N 2: 4 and Ti :S 0.040%, the balance of the composition consisting of iron and inevitable impurities resulting from the smelting, the microstructure of said steel comprising 15 to 90% bainite, the remainder consisting of islands of martensite and residual austenite. 2 Appeal2015-000226 Application 12/599,166 Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuse (US 2006/0137768 Al published June 29, 2006) in view of Beguinot (US 2006/0144483 A 1 published July 6, 2006). Appellants argue claims 1-13 as a group (App. Br. 4). We select claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv)(2013). FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Yuse teaches that the impurity level of nitrogen in the steel sheet is less than 0.001 % and there is no reason to modify Yuse's steel sheet composition to have between 0.004 to 0.008% nitrogen, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4). Appellants contend that the Examiner provides no factual support or citation that such an increased hardness would result if the steel composition of Yuse was modified to have less than 0.03% nitrogen impurity level as taught by Beguinot. Id. Appellants contend that Beguinot teaches a balance of nitrogen, titanium, and zirconium to prevent excessively large nitrides from forming, which inhibit toughness, and Beguinot' s teaching is not applicable to Yuse, which teaches nitrogen as an impurity (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue that Yuse is directed to a steel automotive sheet and Beguinot is directed to an abrasion resistant steel such that Yuse has no need for additional hardness as in Beguinot (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend that the different utilities of Yuse and Beguinot would not have suggested to modify Yuse to use 0.004 to 0.008% nitrogen as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 6). 3 Appeal2015-000226 Application 12/599,166 The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Yuse and Beguinot with regard to claim 1 are located on pages 2-4 of the Final Action. Yuse teaches that the impurity level nitrogen content may be 0.001 % or less (Yuse ii 83). Yuse teaches that there is no limitation as to the shape of the product that can be formed from the steel Cii 105). Yuse teaches that the steel has high-strength and can be used in automotive components including bumpers Cii 109). Beguinot teaches an abrasion resistant steel that has high hardness and an impurity level of nitrogen that does not exceed 0.03% Cii 28). Beguinot teaches that the nitrogen may react with the titanium and zirconium to form nitrides that must not be too coarse, because overly coarse nitrides will affect the toughness of the metal. Id. Based upon the teachings ofYuse and Beguinot, we find that the Examiner has reasonably established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yuse's steel composition to have a nitrogen content within the claimed range, as taught by Beguinot, in order to increase the hardness of the metal and improve its abrasion resistance while avoiding harm to the metal's toughness (Final Act. 3). As noted by the Examiner, Beguinot exemplifies in Table 1 at ii 45 steel compositions having nitrogen contents (e.g., 0.005%) within Appellants' nitrogen range recited in claim 1 (i.e., 0.004 to 0.008%) (Ans. 4). We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Beguinot's abrasion resistant properties would not be applicable to Yuse's high-strength steel. Rather, Yuse teaches that the steel can be used for bumpers on an automobile Cii 105). Automotive bumpers would benefit from having a higher abrasion resistance because the impacts they are likely to experience. 4 Appeal2015-000226 Application 12/599,166 Indeed, the Examiner finds that Yuse's steel composition would have been benefited from controlling the nitrogen concentration to be within the claimed range in order to improve the dent resistance of the metal (Ans. 4). Appellants do not respond to this finding of the Examiner. Appellants contend that Beguinot' s teaching that the amount of Ti, Zr, and N must be such that Ti+ Zr/2 -7 x N/2 2: 0.05% which is greater than the claim requirement that Ti :S 0.040% (App. Br. 6). Appellants contend that combining Beguinot's nitrogen concentration with Yuse's steel composition would also require an amount of Ti that is outside the claimed range. Id. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because the inequality referred to in Beguinot by Appellants does not require that the Ti concentration be greater than 0.040%, as recited in claim 1. Rather, the sum of the Ti content and the Zr content divided by 2 less the product of 7 times the nitrogen content divided by 2 must be less than or equal to 0.05%. The amount of zirconium is not specified in Appellants' claims, but the element is not excluded from the claim either. The claim uses the open-ended language "comprising." Accordingly, an amount of zirconium would lower the amount of titanium required to satisfy the inequality. The Examiner finds that Beguinot teaches a Ti concentration range from 0 to 0.67% which overlaps with Yuse's Ti concentration ranges (i.e., 0.003 to 1.0%) (Ans. 4). Yuse's and Beguinot's Ti concentration ranges include Ti amounts that are less than 0.04%. Accordingly, the amount Ti used in Yuse's steel as modified by Beguinot's nitrogen includes values within the range required by claim 1. Where the argued difference is between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims, the applicant must 5 Appeal2015-000226 Application 12/599,166 show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants have not proffered persuasive evidence that the nitrogen concentration recited in claim 1 is critical or otherwise yields unexpected results. On this record and for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection over Yuse in view of Beguinot. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l). ORDER AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation