Soliden, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 12, 202014545566 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2020) 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. 14/545,566 05/23/2015 Randall Wilfred Oehrlein MINN1053 1518 44088 7590 05/12/2020 KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW P. O. BOX 89626 SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109 EXAMINER YOON, KEVIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2020 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): jason@kaufholdlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RANDALL WILFRED OEHRLEIN and MARK DAVID BLISS Appeal 2019-004810 Application 14/545,566 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 16. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as the applicants, Randall W. Oehrlein and Mark Bliss. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-004810 Application 14/545,566 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to methods of sand casting a metal alloy with improved mechanical properties. According to Appellant, introducing helium into the pressurized vessel used in its casting method imparts improved tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation properties, and little to no porosity. Appeal Br. 8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of casting a metal alloy comprising the following steps: forming a sand based mold having a mold cavity with an appropriate geometry to generate a desired object to be cast; placing the sand based mold without any pattern in an open pressure vessel; filling the mold cavity of the sand based mold with a molten metal alloy; immediately thereafter closing and pressure sealing the pressure vessel; pressurizing the sealed pressure vessel with an inert gas for a predetermined measured time, said inert gas consisting of helium; said predetermined measured time sufficient for the molten metal to cool and solidify; depressurizing the sealed pressure vessel; opening the pressure vessel and removing the metal filled sand mold; and extracting the desired object from the sand mold. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2019-004810 Application 14/545,566 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Garat US 5,058,653 Oct. 22, 1991 Zenpo US 8,490,677 B2 July 23, 2013 Uozumi et al.2 JP 58-84662 May 20, 1983 Doutre WO 90/13374 May 20, 1983 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Uozumi and Doutre. Final Act. ¶ 4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Uozumi, Doutre, and Zenpo. Final Act. ¶ 5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Uozumi, Doutre, and Garat. Final Act. ¶ 6. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). In arguing against the rejections of 2 Citations herein to Uozumi are to the translation of record. Appeal 2019-004810 Application 14/545,566 4 claims 1, 2, 4, and 16, Appellant argues all claims as a group, and states that claim 1 is illustrative. Appeal Br. 4. Accordingly, our decision focuses on claim 1. We have considered the arguments presented in support of patentability of claim 1 to the extent applicable to the separate rejections of claims 2 and 4. After considering the evidence presented and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. The Examiner finds that Uozumi teaches a method of casting a metal alloy comprising the steps recited in claim 1, except Uozumi does not specify that the pressurized gas is helium. Final Act. 3 (citing Uozumi 2–3, Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner finds that Doutre teaches introducing helium into a metal casting chamber in order to cool the molten metal faster. Id. (citing Doutre 4–10). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Uozumi’s method by introducing pressurized helium, because Doutre teaches the advantage of using helium in order to cool the molten metal faster. Id. Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Uozumi as proposed by the Examiner for several reasons: (1) Uozumi’s purpose in using pressurized air was different from Appellant’s purpose, and Doutre teaches a different casting method which does not use pressurized air; (2) using helium in Uozumi’s method would have dramatically increased the manufacturing cost; and (3) using helium in Uozumi’s method would render Uozumi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 6–8. We address these arguments in turn. Appellant’s argument relating to Doutre’s different casting method, lost foam casting, acknowledges that Doutre teaches replacing air at atmospheric pressure with helium, because helium’s high thermal Appeal 2019-004810 Application 14/545,566 5 conductivity compared to air increases the rate of cooling of the molten metal casting. Appeal Br. 7. Although Appellant argues that Doutre’s method is different because it does not use helium in a sealed, pressurized vessel, Appellant admits that at the time of Uozumi it was “known in the industry that pressurized air will cool a casting slightly quicker than air at atmospheric pressure….” Id. at 6. Thus, it is undisputed that both Doutre and Uozumi suggest cooling a mold during casting. In view of that common objective, and the fact that Doutre teaches the advantage of helium for cooling a molten metal during casting, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s combination of Uozumi and Doutre is based on hindsight. As to Appellant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have replaced air with helium in Uozumi’s method because of the increased cost of helium, we do not find this argument persuasive because a manufacturing cost tradeoff would not necessarily have prevented modification of Uozumi’s process. See In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“That a given combination would not be made by businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not make the combination because of some technological incompatibility. Only the latter fact would be relevant.”). As the Examiner finds (Ans. 6), the faster cooling rate with helium would shorten the process time and minimize metal flash and oozing in Uozumi’s process. Absent further evidence supporting Appellant’s argument that the cost of helium would prohibit modification of Uozumi, Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error. We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that using helium in Uozumi’s method would render Uozumi unsatisfactory for its intended Appeal 2019-004810 Application 14/545,566 6 purpose. Appellant’s argument appears to be based on its assertion that Uozumi has “a spring loaded cover (12) of a less permeable material so as to delay the pressure equalization in the mold area . . . .” Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner disputes this and finds that Uozumi would not want a delay in pressure equalization, based on its teaching that the problem of flash and oozing of the molten metal is caused by the pressure difference between the molten metal and the internal die. Ans. 6 (citing Uozumi Abstract). Appellant does not contest this finding. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error. Appellant further argues that it discovered unexpected results when using helium under pressure, as shown in Figure 5 of the Specification. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant argues that “samples of aluminum castings formed under 10 atm of helium had substantial increases in tensile strength, yield strength and elongation properties versus an aluminum casting formed in 10 atm of air” and little to no porosity under microscopic analysis. Id. The burden of showing unexpected results rests on Appellant by establishing that the difference between the claimed invention and the closest prior art was an unexpected difference. See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) (“the burden of showing unexpected results rests on he who asserts them”). Appellant’s argument and evidence does not meet that burden, and accordingly, fails to show unexpected results. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. Appeal 2019-004810 Application 14/545,566 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 16 103 Uozumi, Doutre 1, 16 2 103 Uozumi, Doutre, Zenpo 2 4 103 Uozumi, Doutre, Garat 4 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 16 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation