Ex Parte Weinzierl

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13581437 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/581,437 08/27/2012 Klaus Weinzierl
86528 7590 08/23/2018
Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1650
Austin, TX 78701
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.
03900.117363 5691
EXAMINER
WU,JENNYR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
trosson@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
dallen@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KLAUS WEINZIERL
Appeal 2016-006552
Application 13/581,437
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Non-Final
Action dated Jan 5, 2015 ("Non-Final"); Final Office Action dated July 2,
2015 ("Final"); Appeal Brief filed Dec. 1, 2015 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's
Answer dated Apr. 19, 2016 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed June 1 7, 2016
("Reply Br."). The Examiner cites to the published application. See, e.g.,
Final 3. For consistency, we likewise cite to US 2012/0318478 Al,
published Dec. 20, 2012, but refer to these citations as being to the
"Specification" or "Spec.".
Appeal 2016-006552
Application 13/581,437
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-10 and 15-17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Of the appealed claims, claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is
representative of the appealed claims, and is reproduced below.
1. A method for cooling sheet metal using a cooling section,
wherein the cooling section has a first plurality of coolant
dispensing devices for cooling an upper sheet metal face and a
second plurality of coolant dispensing devices for cooling a
lower sheet metal face, the method comprising:
determining an actual temperture [sic] of at least one of
the upper and lower sheet metal faces,
determining a target temperture [ sic ]of at least one of the
upper and lower sheet metal faces,
determining a total flow of heat to be dissipated from the
sheet metal based on (a) the at least one actual temperture [sic]
of the sheet metal and (b) the at least one target temperture [sic]
of the sheet metal,
measuring a flatness of the sheet metal prior to cooling
the sheet metal by the coolant dispensing devices,
calculating from the total flow of heat to be dissipated
from the sheet metal (i) a first portion of the total flow of heat,
which first portion is to be dissipated from the upper sheet
metal face and (ii) a second portion of the total flow of heat,
which second portion is to be dissipated from the lower sheet
metal face as a function of (a) the determined actual temperture
[sic] of the at least one of the upper and lower sheet metal faces,
and (b) the measured flatness of the sheet metal, and
determining a quantity of coolant to be dispensed by the
first coolant dispensing devices based at least on the calculated
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft.
Appeal Br. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-006552
Application 13/581,437
first portion of the total flow of heat to be dissipated from the
upper sheet metal face,
determining a quantity of coolant to be dispensed by the
second coolant dispensing devices based at least on the
calculated second portion of the total flow of heat to be
dissipated from the lower sheet metal face, and
dispensing the determined quantities of coolant by the
first and second coolant dispensing devices to the upper and
lower sheet metal faces, respectively.
Response to Office Action filed June 11, 2014, 2 (Amendments to the
Claims) (emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 19 (claims appendix).
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
1. claims 1-9 and 15-17 over Soderlund (WO 2009/024644 Al,
published Feb. 26, 2009 (citations are to US 2011/0208345 Al)3) in view of
Osada (JP 02-179825, published July 12, 1990)4; and
2. claim 10 over Osada in view of Soderlund.
Rejection of claims 1-9 and 15-17
The Examiner finds Soderlund discloses a method as recited in
claim 1 with the exception that Soderlund does not expressly disclose
(1) that the cooling section has a first plurality of coolant dispensing devices
for cooling an upper sheet metal face and a second plurality of coolant
dispensing devices for cooling a lower sheet metal face, (2) measuring a
flatness prior to cooling the sheet metal via the coolant dispensing device
3 It is unclear why the Examiner relies on the equivalent, published U.S.
application for an English language translation of the published PCT
application (see, e.g., Non-Final 5), as the latter was published in the English
language.
4 The Examiner cites to the English abstract in rejecting the claims.
However, we note that the record on appeal also includes a full English
language translation.
3
Appeal 2016-006552
Application 13/581,437
(Non-Final 5-7), and (3) calculating, from total flow of heat to be dissipated,
the heat flow to be dissipated from each of the upper and lower metal faces
(Final 5). 5 With respect to (1 ), the Examiner finds Soderlund discloses
dispensing coolant only to a lower sheet metal face, but finds one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Soderlund to dispense coolant
to the upper sheet metal face as well "for the benefit of uniformizing the
cooling rates on the upper and lower faces of the steel sheet to prevent
deformation and [to] obtain[] a uniform flatness" as taught by Osada. Non-
Final 7 ( citing Osada Abstract). Regarding (2), the Examiner finds
Soderlund discloses measuring the flatness of sheet metal after cooling,
recording flatness data in a computer and using the data for adjusting the
nozzles and amount of coolant to achieve a minimum difference between the
desired temperature and determined temperature. Id. at 8 (citing Soderlund
,r 14 ). The Examiner finds the ordinary artisan would have modified
Soderlund "to measure the flatness prior to cooling to facilitate controlling
the delivery of the cooling medium in the cooling section." Id. With respect
to (3), the Examiner finds
Osada suggests determining temperature of top surface and
temperature of bottom surface which reads on heat flow of top
and heat flow of bottom respectively. Thus, calculating the heat
flow to top and bottom from total heat flow is expected.
Soderlund teaches controlling flatness by homogenizing
temperature distribution of sheet metal (paragraph [0003]) and
determining a total flow of heat to be dissipated based on the
5 The Final Office Action addresses language added to claim 1 in an
Amendment filed by the applicant (Appellant) on April 2, 2015, but refers to
the Non-Final Office Action for a discussion of all other claim limitations.
See Final 5.
4
Appeal 2016-006552
Application 13/581,437
actual temperature and target temperature by temperature
comparison.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one [of] skill in the
art to calculate the heat flow to top and bottom from total heat
flow as a function of the determined actual temperature and the
measured flatness in order to control flatness.
Final 5.
Appellant argues the Examiner has not explained sufficiently why one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
understood Soderlund and Osada, individually or in combination, as
teaching or suggesting a method that includes "determining a total flow of
heat to be dissipated from the sheet metal" and calculating, from this total
flow of heat, first and second portions of total heat flow to be dissipated
from upper and lower sheet metal faces, respectively, as required by claim 1.
Appeal Br. 15. More specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 is based on an erroneous finding that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood Osada's disclosure of determining the
temperatures of upper and lower sheet metal faces as equivalent to
determining a total flow of heat to be dissipated from the sheet metal. Id.
at 16.
In response to Appellant's argument, the Examiner asserts that
interpreting "total flow ... as temperature of sheet metal" is supported by
paragraph 23 of the Specification, which "discloses flow of heat is as a rule
at least one function of temperature of sheet metal, temperature of coolant,
the speed of the sheet metal and also the quantity of coolant." Ans. 5. The
Examiner thus determines "both temperature of sheet metal and quantity of
coolant are representations of heat flow according to [the] specification." Id.
at 5---6.
5
Appeal 2016-006552
Application 13/581,437
We have reviewed the Specification in its entirety and agree with
Appellant that the Examiner's interpretation of the claim term "total flow of
heat" as reading on temperature of the sheet metal (or quantity of coolant) is
unreasonable. See Reply Br. 4--7. As correctly observed by Appellant (see,
e.g., id. at 6), the Specification discloses that "[t]he respective flow of heat
can be modeled via an empirical, physical or empirical-physical model," and
that the model can be a function of the sheet metal temperature and/ or
quantity of coolant (Spec. ,r 23). Appellant argues the fact that "heat flow
can be modelled as a function of temperature (along with other factors) does
not make the two concepts equivalent." Reply Br. 6. Appellant's argument
is supported by the Specification which clearly describes the measurement,
or calculation of, the upper and lower sheet metal face temperatures as being
an important factor, but not the only factor necessary to determine total flow
of heat. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 54 ( explaining that a determination of the
temperatures of the upper and lower sheet metal faces allows increased
accuracy in determining total flow of heat to be dissipated); id. ,r 56 ("[T]he
flow of heat to be dissipated is strongly temperature-dependent."); id. ff 58-
60 ( describing the calculations used to determine first and second portions of
total flow of heat to be dissipated).
In sum, as explained above, the Examiner applies an unreasonable
interpretation of the term "total flow of heat" as "temperature of sheet
metal" (see Ans. 5) in finding that the combination of Soderlund and Osada
discloses or suggests the "determining a total flow of heat to be dissipated"
and "calculating" steps of claim 1. The Examiner has not identified
evidence to support a finding that the applied prior art discloses or suggests
these steps under a broadest reasonable interpretation of "total flow of heat,"
6
Appeal 2016-006552
Application 13/581,437
which we construe as being a function of, but not equivalent to, the
temperatures of the upper and lower sheet metal faces. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2-9.
Rejection of claim 10
Like claim 1, independent claim 10 recites a step of "determining a
total flow of heat to be dissipated from the sheet metal." Appeal Br. 22
( claims appendix). In finding this limitation is taught or suggested by the
references, the Examiner applies the same, unreasonably broad interpretation
of "total flow of heat" as "temperature of sheet metal" and cites the same
disclosure in Osada relied on in rejecting claim 1. See Non-Final 12-13.
Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection for the reasons discussed
above.
In sum, for the reasons discussed above, the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1-10 and 15-17 is reversed.
REVERSED
7