Ex Parte Ratzi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2010

10529294 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAIMUND RATZI, ALEXANDER BOUVIER,
WALTER REGENFELDER, STEFAN HARTL, and PETER ORTH
____________

Appeal 2009-002588
Application 10/529,294
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: February 22, 1010
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM for the reasons expressed in the Answer and below.

Appeal 2009-002588
Application 10/529,294

Appellants claim a method of producing a molded body made of
sintered steel from a mixture of iron powder and a master alloy powder
containing nickel, boron, and iron, wherein the boron content of the powder
mixture is between 0.03% and 0.2% by weight at a boron share of the master
alloy powder of less than 10% by weight (claim 1).
Representative claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as
follows:
1. A method for producing a molded body made of
sintered steel, with a sintering powder on the basis of iron
being mixed with a master alloy powder containing nickel, boron
and iron, and with the powder mixture being pressed into a formed
body before the formed body is sintered under the conditions of a
liquid-phase sintering with a volume share of liquid phase up to
15%, wherein the boron content of the powder mixture is between
0.03% and 0.2% by weight at a boron share of the master alloy
powder of less than 10% by weight, that the weight ratio between
the nickel and the boron share of the powder mixture exceeds 5
and that the master alloy powder has an average particle size of
between 10 and 90 µm.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Marshall GB 975,322 Nov. 18, 1964
Takuhiko Nishida et al., Effect of B on the Densification and the Mechanical
Properties of Sintered Iron Powder Compacts, in 54-10 J. Japan Inst. Metals
1147-1153(1990) (hereafter Nishida).1
The Examiner rejects all appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Nishida.

1 In applying the Japanese reference to Nishida, the Examiner relies upon the
English language disclosures in this reference such as the English language
abstract and the English language captions for Nishida’s Figures. We will
likewise rely on the English language disclosures of this Japanese reference
in assessing the merits of the rejection on appeal.
2
Appeal 2009-002588
Application 10/529,294

The Examiner finds that Marshall teaches a method for producing a
sintered ferrous alloy from a powder mixture comprising the claim 1
ingredients at concentrations which overlap those of claim 1 (Ans. 3-4). The
Examiner also finds that Marshall teaches adding nickel as a powdered alloy
with one or two of the other metals present, and the Examiner equates this
powdered alloy with the master alloy of claim 1 (id. at 3, last para.).
Additionally, the Examiner finds that the other metals present in Marshall’s
nickel powdered alloy may include iron and boron in the form of ferro-boron
or metallic borate (Ans. 5, last para.), thereby corresponding to the nickel,
boron, and iron master alloy powder of claim 1.
The Examiner acknowledges that Marshall does not expressly teach a
master alloy powder containing nickel, boron, and iron as required by claim
1 but finds that Nishida teaches using such a master alloy powder in making
sintered iron powder compacts (Ans. 4). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in this art to use in the
process of Marshall a master alloy powder containing nickel, boron, and iron
in the manner and for the reasons taught by Nishida pursuant to the
requirements of claim 1 (id.).
Appellants argue that Marshall contains no teaching or suggestion of a
master alloy powder containing nickel, boron, and iron as required by claim
1 (App. Br. 7). Appellants acknowledge Marshall’s disclosure of adding
nickel as a powdered alloy with one or two of the other metals present but
argue that boron would not be included in such a nickel powdered alloy
because boron is not a metal (id.). However, this argument does not address
the Examiner’s above-noted finding, which is undisputed in the record
before us, that Marshall discloses adding boron in a metallic form such as
3
Appeal 2009-002588
Application 10/529,294

ferro-boron or metallic borate. Under this circumstance, we perceive no
convincing merit in Appellants’ contention that “Marshall . . . discloses that
nickel can be prealloyed with another metal but a prealloy of iron, nickel,
and boron is excluded” (App. Br. para. bridging 7-8).
Appellants also argue that, in order to obtain desired mechanical
properties of the sintered steel, Nishida requires a boron content of the
powder mixture which is higher than the 0.2% maximum recited in appealed
claim 1 (App. Br. para. bridging 8-9). Specifically, Appellants contend that
Nishida requires adding 3 to 7 weight % prealloyed powder (i.e., master
alloy powder) which results in 0.3 to 0.7 %, as opposed to the claim 1
maximum 0.2 %, boron content of the powder mixture (id. at last sentence;
see also id. at para. bridging 9-10).
This argument is unpersuasive.
As correctly explained by the Examiner and contrary to Appellants’
belief, Nishida does not require the proportion of master alloy powder to be
at least 3 weight % (Ans. para. bridging 6-7). Rather, Nishida expressly
discloses obtaining the mechanical property of maximum elongation at a 2
weight % addition of master alloy powder (id.; see also Nishida, abstract).
According to Appellants’ own calculations, the 2 weight % addition
disclosed by Nishida would result in a 0.2 weight % boron content of the
powder mixture which falls within the corresponding boron content ranges
recited in claim 1 and disclosed in Marshall.
Appellants argue that, “[e]ven if Appellant’s [sic] method were
obvious, Appellant’s [sic] method of making sintered steel to produce steel
with good tensile strength while using a lower boron content to create strong
impact strength creates surprising or unexpected results” (Reply Br. para.
4
Appeal 2009-002588
Application 10/529,294

bridging 3-4). However, Appellants acknowledge that they have submitted
no evidence in the record of this appeal (Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br.,
Evidence Appendix & Reply Br., Evidence Appendix). Because no
evidence has been proffered in support of Appellants’ argument concerning
unexpected results, this argument is unconvincing.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, Appellants have
failed to provide the appeal record with any argument or evidence which
reveals error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection. We sustain, therefore, the
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-3 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of
Nishida.
The decision of the Examiner 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

COLLARD & ROE, P.C.
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
5