14114657 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2019)

Ex Parte Sagawa et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 6, 2019

14114657 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/114,657 10/29/2013 25944 7590 06/10/2019 OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Masato Sagawa 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. 158218 5314 EXAMINER LIANG, ANTHONY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/10/2019 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): OfficeAction25944@oliff.com jarmstrong@oliff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASATO SAGA WA and TETSUHIKO MIZOGUCHI Appeal2017-010017 Application 14/114,657 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Yoshimura. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Intermetallics Co., Ltd. is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Yoshimura et al., US 2010/0182113 Al, published July 22, 2010. Appeal2017-010017 Application 14/114,657 The claims are directed to a N dF eB system sintered magnet having Dy and/or Tb (collectively termed heavy rare-earth element RH) diffused from the surface of the NdFeB base magnet material through the magnet's grain boundary by a grain boundary diffusion method. See, e.g., claim 1. Appellant forms the base magnet in a somewhat different manner than the prior art. Specifically, Appellant coarsely pulverizes a strip cast NdFeB alloy by making the alloy occlude hydrogen as is conventional, but then omits the additional conventional step of desorbing the hydrogen by thermal dehydrogenation. Spec. ,r,r 21-22. Appellant's resulting magnet has a different distribution of RH than the prior art magnets. Spec. ,r 57. The resulting compositional difference is expressed in claim 1 as a difference between Cs and Cd3 (G,----Cd3), which is the difference between the RH content at the surface (Cs) and the RH content at a depth of 3 mm (Cd3). The claims require the G,----Cd3 difference be equal to or smaller than 20 wt%. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A NdFeB system sintered magnet having a base material produced by orienting powder of a NdFeB system alloy and sintering the powder, with Dy and/or Tb (RH) attached to and diffused from a surface of the base material through a grain boundary inside the base material by a grain boundary diffusion treatment, wherein a difference Cs-Cd3 between an RH content Cs (wt%) in the grain boundary reaching the surface to which RH is attached and an RH content Cd3 (wt%) in the grain boundary at a depth of 3 mm from the aforementioned attachment surface is equal to or smaller than 20 wt%. Appeal Br. ( claims appendix). 2 Appeal2017-010017 Application 14/114,657 OPINION There is no question that Y oshinmra discloses forming a N dF eB magnet with a heavy rare-earth element (RH) diffused into the base magnet, but does not disclose the G,----Cd3 difference is equal to or smaller than 20 wt%. Final 3--4. The issue is whether the ordinary artisan would have understood Yoshimura as requiring a step of desorbing hydrogen by thermal dehydrogenation. Appellant's Specification provides evidence that performing the conventional hydrogen desorption step causes the Cs----Cd3 difference of the RH to be out of the claimed range of equal to or smaller than 20 wt%. In other words, the evidence indicates that structure of magnet will differ from that claimed if thermal dehydrogenation is conducted. Although the Examiner admits that Yoshimura's Example 1 states that hydrogen was desorbed after being absorbed in the hydrogen pulverizer, the Examiner finds that the broader disclosure does not teach performing thermal dehydrogenation. Final 4 ( citing Yoshimura ,r,r 157, 184, 185). Appellant contends that those of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Yoshimura as requiring thermal dehydrogenation as this desorption step was understood to be a part of the hydrogen pulverization process. Appeal Br. 5-9. To support their argument, Appellant cites five references. Appeal Br. 6-7 (citing Vial3, Coey4, Tomizawa5, Sakamoto6, 3 Vial et al., "Improvement of coercivity of sintered NdFeB permanent magnets by heat treatment," Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials vol. 242-245, pages 1329-1334, (2002). 4 J.M. D. Coey (ed.), "Rare-earth Iron Permanent Magnets," Clarendon press, Oxford (1996). 5 Tomizawa et al., JP2008-305908 A, published December 18, 2008. 6 Sakamoto et al., JP2004-256877 A, published Sept. 16, 2004. 3 Appeal2017-010017 Application 14/114,657 and Ishizaka 7). A preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant's argument. Reading Yoshimura's Example 1 in the context of Yoshimura as a whole and in the context of the references cited by Appellant indicates that those of ordinary skill in the art understood the coarse pulverization step taught by Yoshimura as including a process of desorbing the hydrogen by thermal dehydrogenation. Yoshimura describes taking a strip cast alloy block and subjecting it to hydrogen pulverization, also called coarse pulverization and hydrogen decrepitation. Yoshimura ,r,r 155-157. Although this description of hydrogen pulverization does not expressly disclose desorbing the hydrogen, Example 1 clearly indicates that hydrogen was desorbed as part of the hydrogen pulverization process. Yoshimura ,r 183. Yoshimura does not convey that the pulverization step of the example is different than the pulverization process earlier described in the reference. Nor does Yoshimura convey that Example 1 is a preferred embodiment with added steps. Vial is a research paper reporting on experiments involving rare-earth magnets. In the portion of the paper reporting the experimental procedure used to form the magnets, Vial discloses the magnets were produced "using the classical powder metallurgy process of sintered magnets." Vial p. 1330, ,r 1. Vial states that the process "included a treatment under a pure hydrogen atmosphere, at room temperature, to decrepitate the alloy into coarse fragile particles. This was followed by a partial desorption of hydrogen at an 7 Ishizaka et al., JP2003-297622 A, published Oct. 17, 2003. 4 Appeal2017-010017 Application 14/114,657 elevated temperature under vacuum" to create a chemically pre-milled material. Id. Coey is a book on rare-earth iron permanent magnets that discloses hydrogen decrepitation in Section 2.2.2. According to Coey, "[s]oon after the discovery ofNd2Fe14B magnets, studies showed that alloys such as Nd16Fe76Bs reacted readily with hydrogen at moderate pressures in a strongly exothermic reaction which led to decrepitation of the ingot." Coey Â§ 2.2.2 ,r 1. In discussing the decrepitation process, Coey describes removing hydrogen by vacuum anneal, which as shown in Figure 7 .14, involves heating so that the hydrogen is desorbed in three stages. Coey Â§ 2.2.2 ,I 1 at p. 350, Fig. 7 .14. Vial and Coey provide evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art understood hydrogen pulverization as including a step of thermal dehydrogenation by vacuum annealing. The Japanese references to Tomizawa, Sakamoto, and Ishizaka indicate that heating is necessary to release the hydrogen. Tomizawa ,r 10 ("Since the dehydrogenation reaction that releases hydrogen is an endothermic reaction, the temperature of the treated product is lowered along with the hydrogen release. Therefore, during the dehydrogenation process, it is necessary to heat the treated product."); Sakamoto ,r 4 ("Then, at the stage of dehydrogenation was replaced the furnace atmosphere of Ar gas (inert gas), for example, allowed to warm to 600 Â°C, and performs the process."); Ishizaka ,r 2 ("Hydrogen absorption reaction is an exothermic reaction, the absorption amount of hydrogen decreases as the temperature rises."). 5 Appeal2017-010017 Application 14/114,657 The Examiner reads Yoshimura' s Example 1 as a preferred embodiment accompanying a broader disclosure, but Yoshimura itself, and Yoshimura when read in light of the evidence showing the ordinary artisan's understanding of hydrogen pulverization, does not support such a reading. Nor does the Examiner provide persuasive evidence countering Appellant's evidence showing that thermal dehydrogenation was conventionally understood to be a required step in the hydrogen pulverization process. Thus, we determine a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant's interpretation of Yoshimura' s teachings. 1-5 CONCLUSION In summary: Â§ 103(a) Yoshimura DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 6 1-5