Ex Parte Nakaoka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

14342650 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/342,650 03/04/2014 Takehiro Nakaoka
22850 7590 09/04/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
430789US41PCT 1033
EXAMINER
YOON, KEVIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKEHIRO NAKAOKA,
KAZUYUKI TSUTSUMI, HIDETO OYAMA,
HIDETAKA KANAHASHI, HITOSHI ISHIDA,
DAIKI TAKAHASHI, and DAISUKE MATSUW AKA
Appeal 2017-001100
Application 14/342,650 1
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the November 25,
2015 final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13. An oral hearing was
held on August 16, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 The real party in interest is KABUSHIKI KAISHA KOBE SEIKO SHO.
(Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal 2017-001100
Application 14/342,650
The Examiner maintains the following rejection presented for appeal:
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jackson (US 6,868,896, B2,
issued Mar. 22, 2005) and Rummel (GB 2013542 A, published Aug. 15,
1979).
Appellants' invention generally relates to slab continuous casting
which is a technique wherein a metal slab is continuously formed by
charging molten metal into a bottomless rectangular-shaped mold, wherein
the molten metal as solidified in the bottomless mold and pulled downward
therefrom. (Spec. ,r,r 1-2). Claims 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A continuous casting apparatus for continuously
casting a slab formed of titanium or titanium alloy, the
continuous casting apparatus comprising:
a bottomless rectangular-shaped mold into which molten
titanium or titanium alloy may be charged, solidified and drawn
out;
at least one electromagnetic stirring device configured to
stir the surface of the molten metal or the vicinity of the surface
by electromagnetic induction using an alternating current,
wherein the at least one electromagnetic stirring device is
configured to provide a magnetic field inducing a horizontal
flow in a portion of the molten titanium or titanium alloy
charged into the mold, the horizontal flow being at a portion of
the mold being affected by the magnetic field to induce the
horizontal flow; and
a plasma arc heating device configured to heat the
surface of the molten titanium or titanium alloy charged into the
mold using plasma arcs.
2
Appeal 2017-001100
Application 14/342,650
OPINI0N2
We have reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability.
We will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and the Final action.
The Examiner found Jackson teaches a continuous casting device that
does not contain at least one electromagnetic stirring device for molten metal
as required by the claimed invention. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2). The
Examiner found Rummel shows horizontal flow at a portion of the mold
affected by the magnetic field to induce the horizontal flow, which is
denoted as regions A---C in the annotated figure 1 reproduced below:
Annotated Rummel figure 1 depicts an electromagnetic stirring device
in a bottomless mold identifying the portions that the Examiner determines
2 Appellants' arguments for the patentability of the independent claims are
substantially the same. Appellants have also not presented arguments
specific to every claim on appeal. Consequently, the non-argued claims will
stand or fall with independent claim 1. See 37 C. F. R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-001100
Application 14/342,650
exhibits horizontal flow at a portion of the mold affected by the magnetic
field. (Ans. 6). The Examiner reasons the magnetic field of Rummel induces
both the vertical and horizontal flows. The Examiner also reasons there
would not be any horizontal flow in Rummel without the magnetic field.
(Final Act. 6; Ans. 6). The Examiner asserts the horizontal flow at the
regions A and B are portions of the mold affected by the magnetic field (not
affected by gravity). (Ans. 5---6).
Appellants do not dispute Jackson teaches a continuous casting device
that fails to contain at least one electromagnetic stirring device for molten
metal. (Appeal Br. 5). Appellants have not asserted that it would have been
unobvious to combine the teachings of Jackson and Rummel. (See Appeal
Brief generally). Appellants argue the structure resulting from the
combination of Rummel and Jackson is not the same as the claimed
invention because the coils of Rummel do not affect return flow. (Appeal
Br. 8). Appellants argue Rummel does not disclose an electromagnetic
stirring device in a bottomless mold that includes horizontal flow being at a
portion of the mold being affected by the magnetic field to induce the
horizontal flow as required by the independent claims. (Appeal Br. 4--8).
Appellants argue the coils 4 of Rummel do not directly induce a horizontal
flow of the molten metal as required by the claimed invention. (Appeal Br.
5---6). Appellants specifically argue:
The horizontal flows shown by the arcuate arrows "A" and "B" in the
annotated Fig. 1 of Rummel reproduced below are not horizontal
flows at a portion of the mold being affected by the magnetic field to
induce horizontal flow. Instead, much like the turning flows DI' and
D2' generated by horizontal flows of the present invention (paragraph
4
Appeal 2017-001100
Application 14/342,650
[0044]), the flows A and Bare reversal flows that will necessarily
occur in the molten metal once it has left the influence of the
electromagnetic field, to permit the return flow near the axial center of
the mold. That is, the coils in Rummel induce an axial flow, whereas
the horizontal reversal flows A and B are not horizontal flows "in a
portion of the molten titanium or titanium alloy charged into the mold
being affected by the magnetic field."
(Appeal Br. 5---6).
Appellants' arguments lack persuasive merit. The Examiner
identified in Rummel portions of the mold where horizontal flow occurs near
the surface of the molten metal as well as in a lower portion of the molten
metal. (See regions A---C in the annotated figure 1 reproduced above).
Appellants have not disputed that Rummel discloses horizontal flow
occurring at these locations. The disclosure by Rummel that the magnetic
field causes vertical flow does not indicate that the magnetic field does not
influence the horizontal flow. It is not been disputed that the flow of the
molten metal within the casting device is result of magnetic fields. The
Examiner reasons that the horizontal flow occurring in Rummel would not
occur without the magnetic fields. (Final Act. 6). Appellants have not
refuted the Examiner's position that the horizontal flow of the molten metal
at the various locations, which did not include surrounding walls, could have
occurred in the absence of influence by the magnetic field. Specifically,
Appellants have not explained how horizontal flow could occur at region
5
Appeal 2017-001100
Application 14/342,650
"A" and "B" of the annotated figure in the absence of influence by the
magnetic field.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
those given above. 3
ORDER
The Examiner's obviousness rejection 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
3 Our decision does not rely on Fang (US 5,246,060) cited by the Examiner
as evidence of the axial extent of a magnetic field induced by a coil. (Ans.
8).
6