Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12920218 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/920,218 12/03/2010
20151 7590 05/27/2016
HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC
HENRY M FEIEREISEN
708 THIRD A VENUE
SUITE 1501
NEW YORK, NY 10017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andre Schneider
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.
SCHNEIDER-7 1454
EXAMINER
IP,SIKYIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDRE SCHNEIDER, TANJA SCHMIDT, and
CHRISTINA WINTERMANN
Appeal2014-009374
Application 12/920,218
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA,
and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed Aug. 30, 2010; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") mailed Oct. 10, 2013; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.");
and Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify V &M Deutschland GmbH as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009374
Application 12/920,218
BACKGROUND
The subject matter involved in this appeal relates to a "low-alloy
steel," which is described in the Specification as suitable for producing
"high-strength, weldable hot-rolled seamless steel pipes." Spec. 5. Claim 9
illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
9. A high-strength, low-alloy steel for seamless steel pipes
with excellent weldability and resistance against stress
corrosion cracking and with a minimum yield strength of 620
MPa and a tensile strength of at least 690 MPa, comprising in
mass-%:
0.080- 0.11 % c'
0.020 - 0.050% Al,
0.25 - 0.35 % Si,
1.65 -1.90 % Mn,
max. 0.015% P,
max. 0.005% S,
0.45 - 0.55 % Ni,
0.15 - 0.20 % Cu,
0.35 - 0.55 % Mo,
0.04 - 0.06 % V,
0.04 - 0.05 % Nb,
max. 0.006 % N,
in absence of Cr, and
Ti, wherein a sum of Ti+Nb+V concentrations has a value from
2: 0.04% to :S 0.15%,
remainder iron with melt-related impurities, wherein a ratio
Cu/Ni has a value of 620 MPa for steel pipe nos. 12, 13, 18;
tensile strength values > 690 MP a for steel pipe nos. 3-5, 5', 8-13, 16).
Appellants have not directed us to sufficient evidence to suggest that
compiling these separately reported characteristics of Yamazaki' s various
examples into a single steel composition would have involved anything
beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art, or yielded any unexpected result.
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner's determination that claim 9 would have been prima facie obvious
over Yamazaki. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection I.
5
Appeal2014-009374
Application 12/920,218
II
Because our decision sustaining Rejection I is dispositive regarding
the Examiner's determination ofunpatentability as to all claims on appeal,
we need not reach the merits of the cumulative obviousness determination
based on other references set forth in Rejection II. Cf Beloit Corp. v.
Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (having decided a single
dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other matters decided
by the presiding officer); In re Basel! Poliolefine Italia SP.A., 547 F.3d
1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (having concluded that the Board properly
affirmed the rejection of the claims on one obviousness-type double
patenting ground, it was unnecessary to reach other grounds including
additional double patenting or§§ 102(b) and 103(a) rejections).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
6