Ex Parte SchubertDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201311793408 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/793,408 02/22/2008 Manfred Schubert 207,737 3257 38137 7590 09/24/2013 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB 666 THIRD AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10017 EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUNG D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MANFRED SCHUBERT ____________________ Appeal 2011-010513 Application 11/793,408 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, GAY ANN SPAHN, and HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010513 Application 11/793,408 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Manfred Schubert (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshimatsu (JP 52007046 A, pub. Jan. 19, 1977)1 in view of either Krogsrud (US 4,434,496, iss. Feb. 28, 1984) or Payne (US 2,386,260, iss. Oct. 9, 1945). The Examiner also rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshimatsu in view of either Krogsrud or Payne, and further in view of Larsen (US 6,214,286 B1, iss. Apr. 10, 2001) and claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshimatsu in view of either Krogsrud or Payne, and further in view of Udo (US 4,852,120, iss. Jul. 25, 1989). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A safety device (1) for detecting electrode breakage in an electric arc furnace, wherein an electrode (6) is secured on an electrode support arm (4), and wherein a conduit is filled with a medium under a constant pressure and a pressure drop produced in the conduit at an electrode breakage is detected as an alarm signal, characterized in that the conduit (7a-d,3) is integrated in a protective component (2) of the electrode support arm (4) that is 1 An Abstract of the Yoshimatsu document from the European Patent Office was entered into the image file wrapper of the present application on June 14, 2007. The United States Patent and Trademark Office also obtained an English language translation of Yoshimatsu from Schreiber Translations, Inc., dated February 2011, which was entered in the image file wrapper of the present application on March 10, 2011. Appeal 2011-010513 Application 11/793,408 3 arranged beneath the electrode support arm (4) and is secured thereto, wherein in case of an electrode breakage, the conduit (7a-d,3) is damaged by a produced electric arc, and the pressure drop takes place. OPINION The Examiner found that Yoshimatsu does not disclose the connecting pipe 11 (on which the Examiner reads the claimed “conduit”) being integrated in a protective component of the electrode support arm, as called for in claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Krogsrud discloses the conduit integrated in a protective component (supply pipe 17) of the electrode support arm that is arranged beneath the electrode support arm, and that Payne also discloses the conduit (pipe 54 and check valve 55) integrated in a protective component (plate 15) of the electrode support arm (supporting arm 10) arranged beneath the electrode support arm. Id. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to integrate Yoshimatsu’s conduit in a protective component of the electrode support arm, as taught by Krogsrud or Payne, for the purpose of saving cost of manufacturing and maintenance. Id. Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been prompted to combine the teachings of Krogsrud and Payne with Yoshimatsu in the manner proposed by the Examiner. See App. Br. 11, 12. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellant. The connecting pipe 11 of Yoshimatsu relied upon by the Examiner as the claimed “conduit” is equipped with a pressure gauge 12 that detects a change in oil pressure resulting from a decrease in the weight of electrode 1 Appeal 2011-010513 Application 11/793,408 4 by consumption of the electrode and consequent reduction in force exerted on constant-pressure cylinder 2, 2’. Yoshimatsu Transl. 4-5. Payne’s pipe 54 and check valve 55, on the other hand, perform a different function, namely, supplying pressure to clamps of the electrode clamping block. Payne, p. 1, col. 2, l. 46 et seq. Krogsrud’s supply pipe 17, along with supply pipe 14, comprise an integrated supply pipe arrangement for supplying current to the electrode, coolant to pipes of a cooling shield, and pressure agent to the contact clamps. Krogsrud, col. 4, ll. 1-49. Thus, given the different functions of the conduits of Payne and Krogsrud relied upon by the Examiner, on the one hand, and the function of the connecting pipe and pressure gauge of Yoshimatsu, on the other hand, it is not apparent, and the Examiner has not adequately explained, why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to make any modification to Yoshimatsu’s connecting pipe 11, or how such a modification would save cost of manufacturing and maintenance. Moreover, Yoshimatsu’s disclosure does not appear to support the Examiner’s finding that Yoshimatsu’s conduit 11 is damaged in case of an electrode breakage by a produced electric arc, and pressure drop takes place. Ans. 4 (citing Yoshimatsu’s Abstract). Appellant argues that “no such disclosure can be found in Yoshimatsu.” Reply Br. 2. Yoshimatsu’s Abstract, cited by the Examiner for this finding, states only that the purpose of the invention is “[t]o provide a detector of consumption and breakage of an electrode which detects the pressure change of a constant pressure cylinder provided on the lower portion of electrode liner or clamp block.” The Abstract gives no indication that the detector, or the connecting pipe 11 portion thereof, is damaged upon consumption and breakage of the electrode. Indeed, the detector (i.e., pressure gauge 12 and connecting pipe Appeal 2011-010513 Application 11/793,408 5 11) seemingly continue to operate when the electrode is broken. See Yoshimatsu Transl. 5 (stating, “[w]hen the pressure suddenly reduces, i.e., when electrode 1 is broken, an alarm is given by setting of pressure gauge 12 and electrode 1 is electrically interlocked.”). For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of its dependent claims 2, 4, and 7 as unpatentable over Yoshimatsu in view of either Krogsrud or Payne. The Examiner’s reliance on Larsen’s teaching of a spiral-shaped cooling channel 38 machined in the lower base member of a melting crucible (figs. 1, 2; col. 3, ll. 23-24) does not remedy the deficiency in the combination of Yoshimatsu and either Krogsrud or Payne. See Ans. 5. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3 as unpatentable over Yoshimatsu in view of either Krogsrud or Payne, and further in view of Larsen. In rejecting dependent claims 5 and 6, the Examiner does not rely on Udo for any teaching, or otherwise articulate any reasoning, that would overcome the deficiency in the combination of Yoshimatsu and either Krogsrud or Payne. See Ans. 5-6. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Yoshimatsu in view of either Krogsrud or Payne, and further in view of Udo. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2011-010513 Application 11/793,408 6 hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation