Ex Parte Kelly

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 12, 2010

10908292 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 12, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS JOSEPH KELLY
____________

Appeal 2010-001189
Application 10/908,292
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-12, and 15-
21. The rejection of claims 2, 4, 13-14, and 22-26 is not under appeal. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-001189
Application 10/908,292

1. A method of producing a metallic component, comprising:

providing a mixture of a metallic powder and a binder;

melting said binder and forming said mixture into a preform in the
shape of said component;

removing a majority of said binder from said preform; and

removing the remaining binder from the preform and sintering the
metallic powder together to form the component in a single step at a
predetermined temperature by heating said preform to the predetermined
temperature with microwave energy wherein the predetermined
temperature is sufficient to remove the remainder of said binder and to
sinter the metallic powder together to form the component.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 2):
Johnson 4,765,950 Aug. 23, 1988
Dennis 6,126,895 Oct. 03, 2000

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of producing a
metallic component from a mixture of a metallic powder and a binder. A
preform is formed from the mixture and a majority of the binder is removed
from the preform. A single step is then performed of removing the
remaining binder from the preform and sintering the metallic powder by
heating the preform to a predetermined temperature with microwave energy.
Appealed claims 1, 3, 5-12, and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Dennis.
Appellant argues the rejected claims as a group. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
2
Appeal 2010-001189
Application 10/908,292

We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
There is no dispute that Johnson, like Appellant, discloses a method of
producing a metallic component comprising the steps of blending metallic
powder with a binder, melting the blend to form a green compact of the
desired shape, removing a majority of the binder from the green compact,
and then, during the overall sintering process, removing the residual binder
and sintering the debinded green compact to produce the metallic
component. As recognized by the Examiner, Johnson does not teach
removing the remaining binder and sintering the metallic powder at a
predetermined temperature, and performing the heating step with microwave
energy. However, we agree with the Examiner that Johnson indicates that
some final binder material is removed during sintering by stating that “the
part subjected to the final sintering temperature is substantially binder-free”
(col. 6, ll. 61-63). Furthermore, since Dennis evidences that it was known in
the art to employ microwave energy to sinter a blend of metal particles and
binder in the form of a green compact, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the
particular temperature that is effective to remove the binder and sinter the
metallic particles with microwave energy.
Dennis teaches that the metallic particles “can be precast with a
sacrificial wax or other adhesive which glues the particles together into a
3
Appeal 2010-001189
Application 10/908,292

precast form” (col. 1, ll. 34-36). Dennis discloses the advantage of using
microwave energy by teaching that “[s]intering occurs at a more rapid
temperature increase yet is consummated at a lower temperature level” (col.
3, ll. 23-24). Hence, based on the state of the prior art, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to use microwave energy in the sintering process of Johnson and, through
routine experimentation, determine the temperature or temperature range at
which the remaining binder can be removed while sintering takes place.
Appellant devotes much of the Brief to emphasizing that the final
binder removal step and sintering step of Johnson are performed at different
temperatures. However, Appellant has not set forth a persuasive argument
for why one of ordinary skill in the art, following the teachings of Dennis to
use microwave energy to remove binder and sinter metallic particles, would
have found it non-obvious to determine an optimum temperature to do so.
Appellant submits that “[i]f the last step of Johnson, namely, sintering the
debinded green compact, were done with a microwave source, then it is
likely that the more dense preform, having already undergone two binder
reducing steps, would reflect off microwaves” (App. Br. 12, first full para.).
This argument, however, misses the thrust of the Examiner’s rejection which
is based on the obviousness of one of ordinary skill in the art utilizing the
microwave energy disclosed by Dennis to both remove the residual binder
and sinter the metallic binder at a predetermined temperature which is
ascertained through routine experimentation.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
4
Appeal 2010-001189
Application 10/908,292

In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl

ADAMS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
SUITE 2350 CHARLOTTE PLAZA
201 SOUTH COLLEGE STREET
CHARLOTTE, NC 28244
5