12383234 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2011)

Ex Parte Streubel

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 30, 2011

12383234 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2011)

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. 12/383,234 03/19/2009 Hans Streubel 210,253 1008 38137 7590 03/30/2011 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB 666 THIRD AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10017 EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte HANS STREUBEL ____________ Appeal 2010-010012 Application 12/383,234 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010012 Application 12/383,234 2 This appeal involves claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134 Appellant’s invention is directed to a casting machine for producing cast strands in the shape of billets or ingots. Appealed claim 1, as presented in the Brief, is reproduced below: 1. A casting machine for producing cast strands (2) in shape of billets or ingots, comprising a continuous casting mold (1) for forming a cast strand (2) that is deflected by a cast radius (R) from a vertical casting direction in horizontal casting direction (13); a straightening region (A) having straightening profiled roller pairs (4, 5, 6) with positive diametrical regions (h, b) or negative diametrical regions (-h, -b) for forming the cast strand with one or several projections (h, b) or recesses (-h, -b); and a soft-reduction region (B) adjoining the straightening region and having at least one roller pair (7, 8, 9) with thickness-reducing smooth rollers, wherein in the straightening region (A), at least one pair of straightening profiled rollers (4 to 6) is provided on both sides of a tangent point (3) of the cast radius (R). The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claim on appeal is: Seki et al. JP 6-262,318 Sept. 20, 1994 The Examiner has entered the following ground of rejection: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seki. OPINION The Examiner finds that Seki describes a casting machine for producing cast strands in shape of billets or ingots comprising a continuous Appeal 2010-010012 Application 12/383,234 3 cast molding that anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention (Ans. 3). Appellant contends Seki does not disclose providing the straightening rollers on both sides of a tangent point. The issue before us is: Did the Examiner err in determining that Seki describes or suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art a casting machine comprising at least one pair of straightening profiled rollers on both sides of a tangent point? We answer this question in the negative. The description of the claimed casting machine is substantially the same as the description of the casting machine of claim 41 that was the subject matter on appeal in the prior decision, Appeal 2006-3384. 1 The distinction in the subject matter of claim 41 describes the rollers as “smooth rollers” and “profiled rollers” while the subject matter of appealed claim 1 describes the rollers as “thickness-reducing smooth rollers” and “straightening profiled rollers”. Specifically Appellant argues: JP ‘318 does not disclose providing straightening rollers on both sides of a tangent point of a cast strand. In JP ‘318, the rollers (22) are not straightening rollers. The rollers (22) are designed for molding the cast slab (strand) into a convex shape (claim 3). Even assuming, arguendo, that it would be obvious to place the profiled rollers in an appropriate location upstream of a soft-reduction region, as posited by the Examiner, there is no suggestion whatsoever to place at least one pair of straightening rollers on both sides of the tangent point. (App. Br. 8-9). 1 Application 10/494,590. Appeal 2010-010012 Application 12/383,234 4 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Initially we note that Appellant has not contested the claim interpretation regarding the claim language “tangent point” presented in our prior decision. (See briefs generally). Consequently, we will utilize the same interpretation as presented in our prior decision. (Decision 4). Specifically, we interpreted this claim language as requiring rollers both upstream and downstream from the tangent point. Appellant has not explained error in our prior determination that Seki describes a tangent point that comprises at least a pair of rollers both upstream and downstream from this tangent point. (Decision 4; Reply Brief 2-3). Appellant has not provided a definition for “straightening” rollers that precludes the rollers from providing a shape such as convex. Particularly we note that the Specification discloses the straightening region has “straightening profiled roller pairs with positive diametrical regions or negative diametrical regions for forming the cast strand with one or several projections or recesses.” (Spec. 7). Contrary to Appellant’s alternative argument regarding the location of straightening rollers, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3-4) that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate location for rollers within the straightening region. It is noted that Seki and the prior art discussed in the background of the present Specification are concerned with preventing cracks in cast slabs. This prior art establishes that it is known by persons of ordinary skill in the art to vary the rollers’ profile and location to optimize the quality of cast strands. Consequently, we find no error with the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine Appeal 2010-010012 Application 12/383,234 5 the appropriate location of the rollers in the straightening region of the cast machine of Seki. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”) Thus for the reasons presented in this Decision and those presented by the Examiner, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection. ORDER The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over, Seki 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)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED bar