Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 201613431159 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/431, 159 03/27/2012 YunchunLI 22852 7590 09/14/2016 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 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. 11245.0053-00000 4937 EXAMINER SU,XIAOWEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1733 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2016 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): regional-desk@finnegan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUN CHUN LI and F ALIANO ZHANG Appeal2015-002278 Application 13/431,159 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a process for heat treating an amorphous alloy die cast. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A heat treatment process for an amorphous alloy die cast comprising: subjecting the amorphous alloy die cast to an aging treatment at a temperature of about 0.5 Tg to about 0.6 Tg, wherein Tg is a glass transition temperature in Kelvin of the Appeal2015-002278 Application 13/431,159 alloy, and for a time period of about 10 minutes to about 24 hours, wherein the aging treatment is performed under a positive pressure of about 0.1 MPa to about 0.5 MPa. Colvin Wolter The References us 6,021,840 US 7,153,376 B2 Feb. 8,2000 Dec. 26, 2006 C. Nagel et al., Free-volume changes in the bulk metallic glass Zr46.1Tis.JCU1.sNi10Be27.s and the undercooled liquid, 57 PHYSICAL REVIEW B 10 224-10 227 (1998) (hereinafter Nagel). Daewoong Suh et al., Temperature dependence of positron annihilation in a Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be bulk metallic glass, 18 J. MATER. RES. 2021-24 (2003) (hereinafter Suh). J.J. Chang et al., Effects of annealing on the mechanical properties of Zr-based bulk metallic glass for use in die applications, 396 MATER. SCI. & ENG. 423-28 (2005) (hereinafter Chang). The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 3 and 7-10 over Chang in view of Colvin and Suh, claim 2 over Chang in view of Colvin, Suh and Nagel and claims 4, 5 and 11 over Chang in view of Colvin, Suh and Wolter. OPINION We affirm the rejections. The Appellants argue the claims as a group (Br. 8-11 ). Although additional references are applied in rejecting some of the claims, the Appellants do not separately argue those claims (id.). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. 2 Appeal2015-002278 Application 13/431,159 Claims 2-5 and 7-11 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Chang anneals near net shape Zr-based bulk metallic glass (Tg 635 QK) at 373-823 QK in a vacuum (p. 424) and discloses an annealing time of 10 minutes (Abstract; p. 425). 1 Colvin die casts an amorphous zirconium-copper-nickel-beryllium alloy to form complex three dimensional net shape objects (col. 1, 11. 36-42; col.4, 11. 36-40; col. 5, 11. 57---60).2 Suh anneals a zirconium-titanium-nickel-copper-beryllium metallic glass at 573 QK in a flowing inert gas (p. 2022). The Appellants assert that Suh's inert gas pressure is not necessarily about 0.1 MPa (0.99 atm) to about 0.5 MPa ( 4.93 atm) (Br. 9). The Examiner finds that "one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the inert gas flowing condition disclosed by Suh et al. indicates that no vacuum is applied during [the] annealing process and that the annealing is performed under atmospheric pressure which is 0.1 MPa and is within the recited pressure range of Claim 1" (Ans. 5). Because that finding is reasonable and the Appellants have not challenged it, we accept it as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). The Appellants assert that neither Chang nor Colvin discloses heat treating die cast (Br. 9-10). 1 The Appellants state that "bulk amorphous alloy [is] also known as metallic glass" (Spec. 1 ). 2 The Appellants acknowledge that "[ d]ie casting is one of the most popular methods for preparing amorphous alloys" (Spec. 2). 3 Appeal2015-002278 Application 13/431,159 That argument is deficient in that the Appellants are attacking the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58 (CCP A 1968). The Examiner relies upon the combination of Chang and Colvin for a suggestion to heat treat die cast (Office Action mailed Dec. 2, 2013, p. 4). The Appellants assert that Chang and Colvin would not have suggested annealing at about 0.5 Tg to about 0.6 Tg (Br. 10). Chang's 373 QK annealing temperature (p. 424), which is 0.59 Tg (373/635 = 0.59), is within the Appellants' temperature range of about 0.5 Tg to about 0.6 Tg. See in In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness"). The Appellants ask: "Why would the capability of producing complex three-dimensional net shape provide a reason to subject a die cast as disclosed in Colvin to a heat treatment disclosed in Chang?" (Br. 10). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Colvin's indication that die casting enables complex three dimensional net shape components to be formed (col. 5, 11. 57---60) would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to use die casting to achieve Chang's near net shape deformation (Abstract). For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections. 4 Appeal2015-002278 Application 13/431,159 DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 3 and 7-10 over Chang in view of Colvin and Suh, claim 2 over Chang in view of Colvin, Suh and Nagel and claims 4, 5 and 11 over Chang in view of Colvin, Suh and Wolter are affirmed. It is ordered that 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. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation