Ex Parte Peruzzi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12599677 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/599,677 03/07/2011 Martin Peruzzi 339.0128 1631
76444 7590 03/29/2017
Setter Rnehe T T P
EXAMINER
14694 Orchard Parkway ZHENG, LOIS L
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
u spto @ setterroche .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN PERUZZI, JOSEF FADERI, SIEGFRIED
KOLNBERGER, and WERNER BRANDSTATTER
Appeal 2015-007759
Application 12/599,677
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JULIA HEANEY, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1—3. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-007759
Application 12/599,677
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for producing and
removing a temporary protective layer for a cathodic coating on supporting
metals (Spec. 11).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for producing and removing a temporary protective
layer for cathodic coating, particularly for manufacturing a
hardened steel component with a highly paintable surface,
comprising:
subjecting a sheet steel composed of a hardenable steel alloy to
preoxidization process; during the preoxidization process, a
FeO layer with a thickness of 100 nm to 1,000 nm forms on the
sheet steel;
after the preoxidation process, carrying out a hot-dip coating
process; during the hot-dip coating process, a zinc layer with a
thickness of 5 to 20 pm is deposited on the sheet steel;
setting the hot-dip coating process and an aluminum content in
a zinc bath so that during the hot-dip coating process, an
aluminum content of 0.15 g/m2 is produced in an inhibiting
layer and the sheet steel or a component manufactured from the
sheet steel is/are heated to a temperature above an austenitizing
temperature and then cooled at a speed that lies above a critical
hardening speed, in order to produce a hardening;
adjusting the zinc bath for the hot-dip coating process to
contain oxygen-affinity elements in a quantity of from 0.10
wt.% to 15 wt. %, to form a thin skin composed of the oxide of
the oxygen-affinity elements on the surface of a cathodic
2
Appeal 2015-007759
Application 12/599,677
protective layer during the austenitizing and after hardening;
and
flaking off the oxide layer by blasting the sheet steel or the
component with dry ice particles and without abrasive removal
of the oxide layer.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1—3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fleischanderl (WO 2005/021822 Al; Mar. 10, 2005 and the English
language equivalent US 2007/0256808 Al; Nov 8, 2007) in view of
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Kunihoko (JP 06-269839; Sept.
27, 1994 as machine translated) (JP ’839).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Fleischanderl,
AAPA and JP ’839 are located on pages 3 to 4 of the Final Action. The
Examiner finds that Fleischanderl fails to teach, inter alia, blasting the steel
part with dry ice particles to flake off the oxide layer (Final Act. 4). The
Examiner finds that JP ’839 teaches using dry ice blasting to remove scale
(i.e., surface oxide) from steel surfaces. Id. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to incorporate the dry ice blasting of JP ’839 into
the process of Fleischanderl in view of AAPA in order to remove the surface
oxide from the steel surface as taught by JP ’839. Id.
Appellants argue that Fleischanderl does not teach using dry ice
particles to remove scale (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that
Fleischanderl would not have motivated a person skilled in the art to
3
Appeal 2015-007759
Application 12/599,677
consider blasting the steel part with dry ice particles to flake off the oxide
layer. Id. We agree.
JP ’839 teaches dry ice blasting a steel slab before hot rolling to
remove surface oxide (i.e., scale) from the surface of the steel sheet 22,
26). JP ’839 removes the scale before hot rolling because if the scale is left
on the surface of the slab it pushes into the surface of the sheet being formed
and a crack may form with a deteriorated appearance of a the product (13).
In contrast to JP ’839, Fleischanderl teaches that it is an object of the
invention to create a method for producing a part made of hardened steel
sheet with improved cathodic corrosion protection (H 24, 25).
Fleischandlerl teaches that it is desirable to have an aluminum oxide coating
on the surface of the steel sheet to provide oxidation protection and prevent
zinc vaporization (H 34, 35). Fleischanderl teaches that the steel sheet used
is a hot rolled or cold rolled steel band (138). Fleischanderl discloses that
the surface structure of the cathodic corrosion protection that includes
alumina, zinc-rich, and intermetallic iron-zinc-aluminum phase provides a
steel sheet that has a high degree of adhesion for paints and laquers (H 34,
39, 40). Fleischanderl forms a thin layer of aluminum oxide on the surface
of the steel sheet during annealing and after hardening (H 79, 84, 95—99,
108). Fleischanderl discloses that the method yields an economically
produced steel sheet for the manufacture of press-hardened parts and the
steel sheet has “cathodic corrosion protection that is reliably maintained
even when the sheet is heated above the austenitization temperature and
subsequently formed.” (Fleischanderl 1109).
Fleischanderl discloses maintaining the cathodic corrosion protection
coating (i.e., the alumina, zinc-rich, and intermetallic iron-zinc-aluminum
4
Appeal 2015-007759
Application 12/599,677
phase) even after forming the part. The Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have removed Fleischanderl’s aluminum
oxide coating for further processing of the steel sheet is contrary to
Fleischanderl’s teaching to maintain the cathodic corrosion protection (i.e.,
aluminum oxide, zinc-rich, and zinc-iron-aluminum intermetallic coatings)
after forming (Ans. 3 4). The Examiner relies on 118 of Fleischanderl as
teaching that it was known to abrade the surface of a steel sheet to remove a
surface oxide (Final Act. 3). Fleischanderl’s discussion regarding abrading
the surface oxide layer in 118 is in the Background of the Invention section
of the publication and refers to a prior art method. As noted supra,
Fleishanderl further teaches to maintain the cathodic protection coating after
forming.
JP ’839 teaches to remove the scale before hot rolling to prevent
deterioration in the appearance of the final product. Fleischanderl uses,
however, a hot-rolled steel band (i.e., a band that has already been formed)
in the process (138).
The Examiner has not established that based upon the teachings of
Fleischanderl, AAPA, and JP ’839 one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to use JP ’839’s dry ice blasting technique to remove
Fleischanderl’s oxide layer. On this record, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 is reversed.
5
Appeal 2015-007759
Application 12/599,677
ORDER
REVERSED
6