Ex Parte Plha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2017

12162565 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 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.
12/162,565 03/09/2009 Jens Plha 509507 2667
53609 7590 07/12/2017
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
TRAN, THIEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2017 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS PLHA, MARTIN KOCH, STEFAN WISCHMANN,
BERHARD NACKE, ALEXANDER NIKANOROV,
HOLGER SCHULBE, MARIO SCHMIDT, and
HENNING VON LOHNEYSEN
Appeal 2015-0072281
Application 12/162,5652
Technology Center 3700
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 29,
2008), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Feb. 9, 2015), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed July 28, 2015), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final
Action,” mailed Sept. 9, 2014) and Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed
May 29, 2015).
2 Under the Appeal Brief heading Real Party in Interest, Appellants identify
“WISCO Tailored Blanks GmbH.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007228
Application 12/162,565
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, “[t]he invention relates to a method for the
inductive radiofrequency welding of at least two metal products.” Spec. 1,
11. 5—6. Claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims on appeal. Appeal
Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as illustrative of the
appealed claims.
1. Method for inductive radiofrequency welding of
metal products, in which edge regions to be welded of the metal
products are heated by inducing radiofrequency currents with use
of at least one induction conductor, the metal products and a
welding zone are moved relative to one another, the edge regions
to be welded are brought in contact in the welding zone and are
welded together to form a weld seam, wherein an induction
conductor is used which comprises at least two mutually
separable induction conductor components that are assigned to a
respective metal product and are arranged relative thereto, and
the edge regions to be welded are heated up, by induced
radiofrequency current and a trajectory of the induced
radiofrequency current in the metal product, to a welding
temperature by each mutually separable induction conductor
component in a manner that is adjusted separately for the
respective metal product.
Id.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 5—8, 10-15, and 173 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rudd (US 2,938,993, iss. May 31,
3 Although it is not clear based on the heading on page 3 of the Final Office
Action that the Examiner rejects each of claims 1—3, 5—8, 10-15, and 17 as
unpatentable over Rudd, Schoen, and Seulen, the subsequent description of
the rejected claims clarifies that the Examiner rejects each of these claims.
See Final Action 3—10.
2
Appeal 2015-007228
Application 12/162,565
1960), Schoen (US 4,554,029, iss. Nov. 19, 1985), and Seulen (DE 975 798,
pub. Aug. 30, 1962).
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rudd, Schoen, Seulen, and Schafer (US 3,701,871, iss.
Oct. 31, 1972).
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rudd, Schoen, Seulen, and Ross (US 4,694,134, iss.
Sept. 15, 1987).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness rejection of claims 1—3, 5^8, 10—15, and 17
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, among other
recitations,
the edge regions to be welded are brought in contact in the
welding zone and are welded together to form a weld seam,
wherein an induction conductor is used which comprises at least
two mutually separable induction conductor components that are
assigned to a respective metal product and are arranged relative
thereto, and the edge regions to be welded are heated up, by
induced radiofrequency current and a trajectory of the induced
radio frequency current in the metal product, to a welding
temperature by each mutually separable induction conductor
component.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Although the Examiner finds
that Rudd discloses numerous features of claim 1, the Examiner does not
find that Rudd teaches heating metal edges, by induced radiofrequency
current, to a welding temperature. See, e.g., Final Action 3^4.
The Examiner finds, however, that
Schoen discloses [that] the conductor [is] an induction
[conductor] (Figs[.] 4, 5, conductor 13, [c]ol[.] 7, [l]ine 50
3
Appeal 2015-007228
Application 12/162,565
thr[ough] [c]ol 8, [l]ine 5, radio frequency induction heating
device) that heats the edge regions (Figs[.] 2[—]5, strip 1, strip 12,
[c]ols[.] 6, 7) by induced radioffequency current ([c]ol[.] 7, [l]ine
65 thr[ough] [c]ol[.] 8, [l]ine 5, local heating is accomplished due
to the induced eddy currents) or a resistance heating conductor
(Figs[.] 2, 3, conductor 5, [c]ol[.] 7, [l]ines 12[—]30) is known in
the art.
Id. at 4. The Examiner further determines that
[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify the method for
inductive radioffequency welding of metal products having at
least two mutually separable resistance heating conductors of
Rudd with the conductor being an induction conductor that heats
the edge regions by induced radioffequency current for the
purpose of forming a conductor that rapidly heats regions of a
steel sheet by radio frequency currents
as taught by Schoen {id. at 5 (citation omitted)), because the relied-upon
teaching of Schoen is a “simple substitution” for Rudd’s heating conductor
{id.). We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner does not
establish adequately that either Rudd or Schoen teaches heating metal edges,
by induced radioffequency current, to a welding temperature. Appeal Br. 5—
6. We note that in reply to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief that
“Schoen teaches the use of inductive heating as a means for heat treating,
not heating to a welding temperature as required by the claims” {id. at 6
(emphasis added)), the Examiner does not address adequately claim l’s
recitation relating to the “welding temperature” (Answer 6). Specifically,
the Examiner determines in a conclusory manner, without further discussion
or explanation, that “[therefore, Rudd in view of Schoen and Seulen fully
discloses ‘mutually separable induction conductor components which are
used to heat up a metal product to a welding temperature[,]’ given the
4
Appeal 2015-007228
Application 12/162,565
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.” Id. Similarly, the
Examiner determines later in the Answer that
Rudd discloses using a resistance conductor to heat up the edge
regions of a metal product to a welding temperature. Schoen
discloses substituting the resistance heating conductor of Rudd
with an induction conductor. Modifying the welding system of
Rudd in view of the induction conductor] of Schoen would
provide a welding system that has “an induction conductor used
to heat up the edge regions of a metal product to a welding
temperature.”
Answer 8. This determination is also conclusory and lacks adequate
explanation.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, or the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5—8 that depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites a similar limitation, and the Examiner rejects
claim 10 for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1. Thus, we
also do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 or its dependent claims 11—15
and 17.
Obviousness rejections of claims 4, 9, 12, and 16
Inasmuch as the Examiner does not establish adequately that any other
reference remedies the above-discussed deficiencies in the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent
claims 4, 9, 12, and 16.
5
Appeal 2015-007228
Application 12/162,565
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—17.
REVERSED
6