Ex Parte Karogal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2013

11142586 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NIKHIL U. KAROGAL
____________________

Appeal 2011-002872
Application 11/142,586
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002872
Application 11/142,586

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejections of claims
27-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a titanium dioxide based welding flux
system. Claim 27, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
27. A flux cored electrode including a flux system,
said flux system comprising titanium dioxide and a
moisture resistant compound, said titanium oxide
including purified titanium dioxide, said moisture
resistant compound including a colloidal metal
oxide, said colloidal metal oxide having an average
particle size of less than about 800 nm, said
purified titanium dioxide including less than about
5 weight percent impurities that can act as
nucleation sites for carbide formation in a weld
metal, wherein said flux system is located within
the core of the electrode.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Perfect
Zvanut
Hill
Kimura
Takimoto
Kotecki
US 3,725,054
US 3,848,109
US 4,045,593
US 4,131,784
US 5,438,083
US 6,339,209 B1
Apr. 3, 1973
Nov. 12, 1974
Aug. 30, 1977
Dec. 26, 1978
Aug. 1, 1995
. 15, 2002

Appeal 2011-002872
Application 11/142,586

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 27-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zvanut, Perfect, Hill, and Takimoto. Ans. 4.
Claims 41-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zvanut, Perfect, Hill, Takimoto, and Kimura. Ans. 7.
Claims 43-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zvanut, Perfect, Hill, Takimoto, and Kotecki. Ans. 8.1

Claims 27-40
The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zvanut in view of Perfect, Hill, and Takimoto. The
Examiner contends that Zvanut discloses a flux cored arc welding electrode,
the electrode components of which have relatively low moisture absorptivity
and means are provided for limiting moisture resulting in a moisture content
of less than 1.0 wt % based on the weight of the filler. Ans. 4. The
Examiner admits that: although Zvanut discloses the use of titanium dioxide
(rutile) the exact purity is not disclosed; although Zvanut discloses a mixture
of dispersed particles, a colloid is not specifically taught; and although
Zvanut discloses size ranges of filler particles, that is, the mesh size, specific
particles sizes are not taught. Id. at 5. For the titanium dioxide recitation,
the Examiner relies upon Perfect. Id. For the mitigation of nucleation sites

1 Claims 1-26 were previously cancelled. App. Br. 3; Ans. 17 (as to claim
10). Claims 45-58 have been withdrawn. App. Br. 3; Ans. 2. The rejection
of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 was withdrawn in view of Appellant's
after final amendments. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2011-002872
Application 11/142,586

4
for carbide formation, in the weld metal, the Examiner relies upon the
disclosure in Zvanut, Perfect, and Hill. Id. at 6.
The Examiner states that:
Hill et al. discloses moisture resistant flux welding
electrodes. The flux covered electrodes are made resistant to
moisture absorption by treating the initial electrodes with a
dilute dispersion of at least one material taken from the class of
silicon bearing materials consisting of colloidal amorphous
solid silica, quaternary ammonium colloidal silica sols and
soluble silicates of lithium and potassium. Colloidal
amorphous solid silica preferably has an ultimate particle size
of less than 1 micrometer.

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the Zvanut silica by
substituting colloidal silica as taught by Hill et al. because these
are functional equivalents which help to negate moisture
absorption.

Id. at 6.
From Hill’s disclosure of a colloidal silica particle size of less than 1
micrometer, but not specifically a particle size of less than 800 nm, the
Examiner adds Takimoto, which the Examiner says “discloses a colloidal
particle dispersion and coating for protecting steel plates.” Id. at 7. The
Examiner finds that “[m]ost of the colloidal particles used [there] have
particle diameters of from 20 to 60 nm.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it
“would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to modify the colloidal silica particle size of Hill et al. to
encompass the range of 20 to 60 nm as taught by Takimoto et al. because
this is merely a more specific range of the less than 1 micrometer size.” Id.
Appellant contests the Examiner’s use of Hill and Takimoto to fill the
deficiencies of Zvanut with regard to a moisture resistant compound.
Appeal 2011-002872
Application 11/142,586

5
Appellant asserts that the teachings of Hill and Takimoto are inapposite as
“they are directed to ‘a method of making flux-covered electrodes’ and ‘a
water-based coating composition,’ respectively.” App. Br. 13 (emphasis in
original). See Hill Abstract. Appellant notes:
Hill is directed to a method for producing covered electrodes,
which are made moisture resistant by the formation of a film on
the electrode coating's surface, which fills the surface pores of
the untreated electrode, thereby preventing moisture from being
absorbed. See Hill, col. 2, ll. 11-16. Still further, Hill’s
colloidal silica is not a part of the flux system as required by
claim 27, but rather ”a Si02-rich film or layer on the outer
surface of the bulk coating.” Hill, col. 4, ll. 31-2. Simply put,
there is no teaching within Hill that would suggest utilizing the
coating applied in a layer over a covered electrode as
component of a flux system located within the core of an
electrode.

App. Br. 13-14.
We agree with Appellant’s reading of Hill as disclosing a colloidal
silica layer that is not part of the flux system. Hill, col. 4, ll. 31-32
(discussing the layer on the outer surface of the bulk coating). As such, we
disagree with the Examiner’s determination that Hill would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize colloidal silica in the flux core of Zvanut.
Appellant notes further, with regard to the Examiner’s citation of
Takimoto, above, that Takimoto is not related to the production of a flux
cored electrode, but rather the production of a precoated steel sheet, App. Br.
14, and further “there is no evidence that the colloidal particles taught by
Takimoto would function within the aqueous solution disclosed in Hill,” id.,
or particularly that “the particle size of silica used to create the colloidal
silica disclosed in Takimoto would result in the colloidal silica of Hill
without the addition of a colloidizing agent, as required in Takimoto.” Id.
Appeal 2011-002872
Application 11/142,586

6
We agree with Appellant’s arguments as to Takimoto. The fields of
making flux cored electrodes as here and the precoated steel sheets of
Takimoto are different, and the Examiner has not shown that the colloidal
particles of Takimoto would function within the aqueous solution of Hill, or
that the particles of Takimoto would result in the useful colloidal silica
taught by Hill. The Examiner has not adequately explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the
teachings of the references, to make up for the deficiencies of the teachings
of Zvanut.
We reverse the rejection of claims 27-40 for the reasons stated.

Claims 41-422 and 43-44
As noted above claims 41-44 are rejected upon the same references as
claims 27-40, with claims 41 and 42 being rejected further in view of
Kimura and claims 43 and 44 being rejected further in view of Kotecki.
Neither Kimura nor Kotecki are cited by the Examiner to supplement the
rejections of claims 27-40 under the other references. Claims 41-44 depend,
directly or indirectly, from claim 27, and therefore the rejection of these
claims is reversed, for the reasons given above with respect to claim 27.

2 Appellant inadvertently refers to claim 12, but intends to refer to claim 42.
Ans. 17; Reply Br. 7.
Appeal 2011-002872
Application 11/142,586

7
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27-44 is
reversed.

REVERSED

Klh