Ex Parte Squires

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2008

10983962 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WAYNE F. SQUIRES
____________

Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 29, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
all pending claims (claims 1-16). (Final Office Action entered July 19,
2006). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

Appellant’s invention relates to an apparatus for die casting where
“molten or semi-molten metal is injected under pressure into hardened steel
dies.” (Spec. ¶ 0004). As described in the Specification, “[m]olten or semi-
molten metal to be cast is charged into the die cavities by a charging
assembly that includes a pressure cylinder or ‘shot sleeve’ for receiving
molten metal from an inlet, a piston movable in the shot sleeve for forcing
the molten metal into the die cavities, and a shot block extending over the
shot sleeve and connected to the die.” (Spec. ¶ 0006). According to
Appellant, “the present invention utilizes a shot block that does not
encompass the shot sleeve as know[n] in the prior art so that cooling effects
provided by the shot block act directly upon the biscuit rather than indirectly
on the biscuit through the shot sleeve.” (Spec. ¶ 0012). The claims are
directed to the shot block alone (claims 12-16) and the shot block combined
with other elements for a die casting machine (claims 1-11).
Representative claims 1, 8, 12, and 13 read as follows:
1. A die casting machine for creating a die cast component
from a molten or semi-molten metal charge, said die casting
machine comprising:
a first die and a second die configured for confronting
engagement with one another along a separation surface and
together defining at least one die cavity therebetween;
a shot block having mutually opposed first and second
engagement surfaces and a passage extending therethrough
from the first engagement surface to the second engagement
surface, said passage in fluid communication with said die
cavity for transmitting a molten or semi-molten metal charge to
said die cavity;
a cooling channel within said shot block for circulating a
fluid therethrough to absorb heat from said charge located
within at least a portion of said shot block passage;
2
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

a shot sleeve having a passage, said shot sleeve abutting
said shot block along the first engagement surface wherein said
shot sleeve passage is in fluid communication with said shot
block passage for transmitting said charge to said shot block
passage;
a plunger disposed within said shot sleeve passage for
forcing said charge through said shot sleeve; and
wherein a cross-section of said shot sleeve passage is
substantially equal to a cross-section of said shot block passage
so that said plunger is capable of entering said shot block
passage.

8. A die casting machine for creating a die cast component
from a molten or semi-molten metal charge; said die casting
machine comprising:
a first die and a second die configured for confronting
engagement with one another along a separation surface and
together defining at least one die cavity therebetween;
a shot block having mutually opposed first and second
engagement surfaces and a generally cylindrical passage
extending therethrough from the first engagement surface to the
second engagement surface, said passage in fluid
communication with said die cavity for transmitting a molten or
semi-molten metal charge to said die cavity, said passage
having a diameter;
a cooling channel within said shot block for circulating a
fluid therethrough to absorb heat from said charge located
within at least a portion of said passage;
a shot sleeve having a generally cylindrical passage with
a diameter, said shot sleeve abutting said shot block along the
first engagement surface, wherein said shot sleeve passage is in
fluid communication with said shot block passage for
transmitting said charge therethrough to said shot block
passage;
a plunger disposed within said shot sleeve passage for
forcing said charge through said shot sleeve; and
wherein the diameter of said shot block passage is
substantially equal to the diameter of said shot sleeve passage
3
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

so that said plunger is capable of entering said shot block
passage.

12. A shot block for use in a die casting machine wherein
said shot block provides fluid communication of a molten or
semi-molten metal charge between a shot sleeve and a die
having a die cavity, the shot block comprising:
a body having mutually opposed first and second
engagement surfaces, said first engagement surface abutting a
shot sleeve and said second engagement surface abutting a die
having a die cavity;
a passage extending longitudinally through said body and
defining an opening at said first engagement surface and an
opening at said second engagement surface for transmitting a
molten or semi-molten metal charge under pressure through
said passage;
a cooling channel within said body for circulating a fluid
therethrough to absorb heat from said charge located within at
least a portion of said passage.

13. The shot block of claim 12 wherein said passage is
substantially cylindrical.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner to reject the claims on
appeal are:
Guha 6,591,894 B2 Jul. 15, 2003

Appellant’s description of the admitted prior art in the Specification at pp.
2-4.

The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Appellant's admitted prior art.
4
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

Claims 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Appellant's admitted prior art.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Guha.

ISSUES
Has Appellant shown a reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the prior art described in the Specification anticipates the
subject matter of claims 12 and 14?
Has the Appellant shown a reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the subject matter of claims 13, 15, and 16 would have
been obvious over the Appellant’s admitted prior art?
Has Appellant shown the Examiner reversibly erred in determining
claims 1-16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over
the teachings of Guha?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Specification discusses conventional die casting machines where
“[m]olten or semi-molten metal to be cast is charged into the die cavities by
a charging assembly that includes a pressure cylinder or ‘shot sleeve’ for
receiving molten metal from an inlet, a piston movable in the shot sleeve for
forcing the molten metal into the die cavities, and a shot block extending
over the shot sleeve and connected to the die.” (Spec. ¶ 0006).
2. The Specification discloses a prior art shot block in Figure 2,
reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

Figure 2 depicts a prior art shot block 12 with cooling passages 18 and metal
charge or biscuit 20, arranged with sleeve 10, runner block 16, and runner
14. (Spec. ¶ 0016, 0022; Figure 2).
3. The prior art shot block 12 has mutually opposed first and second
engagement surfaces that are able to abut to elements or devices placed
against them; the second engagement surface abuts to runner block 16 and
the mutually opposed first engagement surface is free, and able to abut to
elements placed against its surface. (Spec. Figure 2).
4. Consistent with the ordinary meaning of “abut,” the Specification
establishes that the term “abut,” as used in Appellant’s claimed invention, is
an arrangement between the inventive shot sleeve and shot block where the
shot sleeve is adjacent or touches the shot block. (Spec. ¶ 0028, Figure 3).
5. Guha states conventional die casting machines include a “charging
assembly which includes a pressure cylinder for receiving molten metal
from an inlet, a piston movable in the pressure cylinder for forcing the
molten metal into the die cavities, and a shot block made from conventional
tool steel mounted in or on the cover die half of the die,” where “[t]he shot
block defines a manifold or reservoir for receiving molten metal from the
pressure cylinder and supplying this molten metal to the die cavities.” (Col.
1, ll. 33-39).
6
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

6. It is common knowledge to make a mechanical connection between
the shot block and other steel parts of the die casting machine as a mounting
in or on other parts. (Guha, col. 3, ll. 58-59).
7. Guha discloses a conventional die with runners located in the
separation surfaces between the die halves (Col. 1, ll. 42-43).
8. Guha teaches a die casting machine “equipped with a shot block . . .
such that it received the end of a shot sleeve (pressure cylinder), provided
for receiving an associated plunger.” (Col. 8, ll. 10-13).
9. Guha claims the “shot block further being shaped to receive the
plunger of the die casting machine.” (Col. 9, ll. 9-10).
10. In the context of the configuration of structural parts, “receive” means
“to bear the weight or force of; support,” as well as “to take in, hold, or
contain.” (receive. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
(accessed: April 09, 2008) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/receive.
11. Guha states “the time it takes molten metal in the shot block reservoir
to solidify sufficiently represents the constraining factor in achieving shorter
cycle times in 25 to 50% of commercial die casting operations.” (Col. 2, ll.
9-13).
12. Appellant states that it is known in the art that “[i]t is always desirable
to shorten cycle times in the die casting operation to improve efficiency and
increase production.” (Spec. ¶ 0008).

7
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation requires that a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the
claimed invention. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
“One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved
obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known
problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct 1727, 1742
(2007).

ANALYSIS
The Rejections of Claims 12 and 14 Based on 35 U.S.C. § 102 over the
Admitted Prior Art.
Appellant submits arguments for claims 12 and 14 under separate
subheadings, but relies on similar arguments in discussing these claims. We
address these arguments accordingly.
Appellant states that “claim 12 is directed towards a shot block for use
in a die casting machine.” (Br. 19, l.15). Appellant asserts that the admitted
prior art does not teach all the limitations of claim 12 because the
Specification’s description of the prior art “contemplates ‘a shot block
extending over a sleeve’ . . . illustrated in prior art figures 1 and 2 of the
application,” (Id. 20, ll. 2-8), not a shot block that “includ[es] the structural
8
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

limitation of [a] ‘first engagement surface abutting a shot sleeve.’” (Id. 19,
ll. 27-28).
We cannot agree with Appellant. A shot block is one part of a
charging assembly in a conventional die casting machine. (FF 1, 3). As
recognized by Appellant, Claim 12 is directed to this one part, a shot block
for use in a die casting machine. (Br. 19, l. 15). Using the phrase “a shot
block for use in” sets a functional relationship between the claimed shot
block and other elements described in the claim body, such as a shot sleeve
and a die. Taking into account this functional relationship, we determine
that the claim scope does not include a shot sleeve combined with the shot
block. Here, the shot block is claimed alone. While the claimed shot block
includes structure of a “first engagement surface abutting a shot sleeve,” this
structure only sets out how a shot block engagement surface would relate to
a shot sleeve, if a shot sleeve were combined with the shot block. To
construe the claim otherwise would result in an inconsistency with the claim
limitation a “shot block for use in a die casting machine.” The
Specification’s Figure 2 shows a prior art shot block having an engagement
surface to which a shot sleeve could abut. (FF 2, 3). Though the prior art
shot sleeve is shown positioned within a shot block, this overlapping
arrangement does not negate the engagement surface of the shot block, to
which a different shot sleeve could abut.
Though the Appellant vaguely implies that the sleeve may be included
in the claim by stating that an “amendment clarified the claim by removing
the functional language of ‘capable of abutting engagement’ to form a
structural limitation of the ‘first engagement surface abutting a shot sleeve,’”
Appellant never explicitly argues that the shot sleeve is a required element
9
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

of claim 12. (Br. 19 bridging to 20). Removing the “capable of abutting”
language, which solidified the claim scope as directed to a shot block for use
with other elements in a die casting machine, and replacing with “surface
abutting a shot sleeve,” which is inconsistent with the “for use in” phrase of
the claim, does not help clarify the claim. During prosecution, Appellant
could have clearly amended claim 12 similarly to claims 1 and 8, which
recite a shot sleeve in combination with the shot block; he did not so amend
the claim. Giving the claim its broadest reasonable reading, as directed by
In re Zletz, the Examiner determined that the scope of claim 12 did not
include the shot sleeve, but required the shot block alone. (Ans. 6 bridging
to 7). As the burden of precise claim drafting is Appellant’s, not the PTO’s,
we agree with the Examiner that the claim scope does not include a shot
sleeve. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is the
applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.”). The
Examiner found the claimed shot block indistinguishable from the prior art
shot block described in Appellant’s Specification. (Ans. 3, ll. 8-14).
Appellant has not shown any persuasive evidence that the Examiner erred in
his determination that the prior art anticipates the shot block recited in claim
12.
With regards to dependent claim 14, Appellant states the claim
“inherits the limitation of ‘a body having mutually opposed first and second
engagement surfaces where the second engagement surface abuts a shot
sleeve,’” and relies on similar arguments as discussed above with respect to
independent claim 12. (Br. 20, l. 11 – 21, l. 2). These arguments are
unpersuasive, as discussed above, to show that the Examiner erred in
determining the prior art anticipates the claimed invention.
10
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

The Rejections of Claims 13, 15, and 16, Based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
Admitted Prior Art.
Appellant argues claims 13, 15, and 16 together. Accordingly, we
select claim 13 as representative and confine our discussion to this claim.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellant states that claim 13 “inherits the limitations of ‘a body
having mutually opposed first and second engagement surfaces where the
second engagement surface abuts a shot sleeve.’” (Br. 21, ll. 10-11).
Appellant argues that with this limitation and “[i]n light of the arguments
presented herein that claim 12 is patentable over the prior art,” the Examiner
“fails to satisfy the requirements for a 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness
rejection.” (Id. 21, ll. 15-17). For the same reasons as discussed with
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 12 above, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
Appellant has not successfully rebutted the Examiner’s obviousness
determination.

The Rejections of Claims 1-16, Based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Guha.
With respect to the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16, Appellant
submits arguments for claims 1, 8, and 12 under separate subheadings. We
address these arguments accordingly.
Claim 1.
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that Guha discloses
a die casting machine including a first and second die, a shot block for
transmitting molten metal charge to the die cavity, a fluid cooling channel
within the shot block, a shot sleeve having a passage, and a plunger within
11
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

the shot sleeve. (Br. 11-21). Rather, Appellant contends that Guha does not
teach the limitations of:
1) the shot sleeve abutting the shot block along the first
engagement surface wherein the shot sleeve passage is in fluid
communication with the shot block passage; and
2) a cross-section of the shot sleeve passage substantially equal
to a cross-section of the block passage so that a plunger is
capable of entering the shot block passage.

(Id. 12, ll. 19-26). Appellant argues that the prior art does not describe a
shot sleeve abutting a shot block, as required in the claim, because Guha
describes a “shot block ‘receiving’ an end of the shot sleeve,” and has used
“receive” or “received” in other locations of the reference “to indicate one
element entering a second element.” (Id. 14, ll. 7-15). Appellant asserts that
Guha has not defined “receive” and “nothing in the reference leads to a
conclusion that ‘received’ means abutting.” (Id. 14, ll. 10-11). Furthermore,
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness for claims 1-16 because the Examiner did not identify a
motivation to modify the prior art to meet the claim limitations, discuss why
any modification would have a reasonable expectation of success, or assert
how Guha teaches or suggests every claim limitation. (Id. 12, ll. 5-11).
We cannot agree with Appellant’s argument. Guha discloses a die
casting machine including a shot sleeve (pressure cylinder) with a piston or
plunger and a shot block where the plunger forces molten metal to flow from
the shot sleeve to the shot block and then to the die cavities. (FF 5). While
claim 1 requires a shot sleeve to abut a shot block, Guha teaches to arrange
the shot block and shot sleeve such that the shot block “receives” the end of
the shot sleeve. (FF 8). Guha does not define the term “receives” within the
12
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

reference so we look to what one of ordinary skill in the art would consider
as its ordinary meaning within Guha’s disclosure. The dictionary defines
“receive” as “to bear the weight or force of; support,” as well as, “to take in,
hold, or contain.” (FF 10). Therefore, the term “receive” is consistent with
an “abutting” arrangement between the shot sleeve and shot block. (FF 4).
Guha teaches arranging the shot block and shot sleeve passages so the shot
block accepts the shot sleeve’s associated plunger while the shot block
receives the end of a shot sleeve. (FF 8 and 9). The term “receive” supports
a limited number of shot sleeve and shot block connection arrangements. In
one arrangement, the shot sleeve would extend into, or overlap, the shot
block. In another arrangement, the shot sleeve and shot block would not
overlap. With these limited choices to arrange a shot sleeve and shot block
connection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ either arrangement, aligning respective passages, and enabling the
plunger to force molten metal to flow from the shot sleeve to the shot block
to the die cavities. An expectation of success to achieve a mechanical
connection between the shot sleeve and shot block is common knowledge, as
it is known to mount the shot block in or on other parts (FF 6).
Additionally, Guha addresses die casting commercial concerns and
states that “the time it takes molten metal in the shot block reservoir to
solidify sufficiently represents the constraining factor in achieving shorter
cycle times in 25 to 50% of commercial die casting operations.” (FF 11). In
recognizing market forces, Appellant states that it is known in the art that
“[i]t is always desirable to shorten cycle times in the die casting operation to
improve efficiency and increase production.” (FF 12). Given the market
forces and the limited number of arrangements to connect the shot block and
13
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

shot sleeve, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
abut the shot sleeve with the shot block to connect the fluid passages of
each. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007) (“When
there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).
Furthermore, Guha discloses the shot block shape receives the plunger
associated with the shot sleeve. (FF 8 and 9). The Examiner determined
that the use of the shot sleeve associated plunger in the shot block would
suggest that the shot sleeve and shot block passages have the same cross-
sectional (and diameter) dimension. (Ans. 6, ll. 10-17). Having the same
cross-sections (and diameters) provides a substantial fit between the plunger
and each passage, respectively, enabling the plunger to develop sufficient
pressure to efficiently force molten metal through the shot sleeve and shot
block. Using similar dimensions to accommodate the same plunger would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.”). Appellant has failed to present sufficient
evidence to rebut the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
Claim 8.
In discussing claim 8, Appellant relies on similar arguments
presented with respect to claim 1, above. Appellant argues that Guha
14
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

does not teach: 1) “the shot sleeve abutting the shot block along the
first engagement surface” with fluid communication between the shot
sleeve and shot block, or 2) “a diameter of the shot sleeve passage
substantially equal to a diameter of the block passage so that a plunger
is capable of entering the shot block passage.” (Br. 15, ll. 5-15). As
discussed above, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive to show
the Examiner erred in finding the abutting relationship of the shot
block and shot sleeve obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the consideration of diameters is incorporated in the
discussion above regarding the cross-sections of the shot block and
shot sleeve passages. Moving the same plunger from the shot sleeve
to the shot block suggests using substantially same shot sleeve and
shot block diameters in the same manner as suggesting substantially
same cross-sections.
Claim 12.
Again, Appellant submits similar arguments as discussed with respect
to claims 1 and 8 above to contend that the “Examiner has not shown that
Guha teaches or suggests a shot block with a body having mutually opposed
first and second engagement surfaces where the first engagement surface
abuts a shot sleeve.” (Br. 17, ll. 20-22).
Appellant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. Claim 12 is directed to a
shot block for use in a die casting machine, as discussed above. The
Examiner found that Guha teaches a shot block between a shot sleeve and
the runner (Ans. 4 bridging to 5). The runners are in the die, located in the
separation surfaces between the die halves (FF 7). Therefore, since the shot
block is located between the shot sleeve and die, connecting to these
15
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

elements on either side of the block would necessarily require opposing
surfaces. Choosing abutting arrangements to connect mechanically to these
opposing surfaces would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appellant has not satisfied
his burden to show that the Examiner erred in determining the claim would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that Appellant’s admitted prior art anticipates claims 12 and 14.
Also, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in determining that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the subject matter of claims
13, 15, and 16 obvious over Appellant’s admitted prior art. Finally,
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in determining claims 1-16
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the
teachings of Guha. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Examiner to
reject appealed claims 1-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

16
Appeal 2008-1692
Application 10/983,962

PL initials:
sld

MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC
60 SUPERIOR AVENUE, EAST
SUITE 210
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-2653
17