Ex Parte Aruga et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 201613585076 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/585,076 08/14/2012 Yasuhiro ARUGA 22850 7590 10/20/2016 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP, 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 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. 397855US99CONT 2943 EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2016 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): patentdocket@oblon.com oblonpat@oblon.com ahudgens@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YASUHIRO ARUGA, RYOICHI OZAKI, and YOSUKE MIW A Appeal2015-001617 Application 13/585,076 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K. PAK, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-21 (Final Action mailed January 15, 2015). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 The real party in interest is stated to be Kabushiki Kaisha Kobe Seiko Sho (Kobe Steel, Ltd.) (App. Br. 1). Appeal2015-001617 Application 13/585,076 Claims 2, 4, and 6 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 2. A copper alloy sheet comprising: Cu; 0.01 to 0.50 mass% of Fe; 0.005 to 5.0 mass% Sn; and 0.01to0.15 mass% of P; wherein the copper alloy sheet has an improved stampability has a microstructure in which a value obtained by dividing the halfvalue-width of the intensity of diffraction of {311} plane in a surface of the sheet, by its peak height, is 0.015 or more. 4. A copper alloy sheet for an electric and electronic part compnsmg: Cu; 0.01 to 0.50 mass% Fe; 0.005 to 5.0 mass% Sn; and 0.01to0.15 mass% P, wherein the copper alloy sheet has an improved softening resistance and which has a microstructure in which a ratio (1 (200)11 (220)) of the intensity (1 (200)) of diffraction of the (200) plane in the sheet surface, to intensity (1 (220)) of diffraction of the (220) plane, is 0.3 or less. 6. A copper alloy sheet, comprising: Cu· ' 0.01 to 0.50 mass% Fe; 0.005 to 5.0 mass% Sn; and 0.01to0.15 mass% P, wherein the copper alloy sheet has an improved resistance of peel off of an oxidation film and has a texture such that that two crystals adjacent with each other having an orientation difference between them of 15° or less are viewed that they are located in the same crystal plane, the orientation distribution density from Brass orientation measured by the crystal 2 Appeal2015-001617 Application 13/585,076 orientation analysis method using an Electron Backscatter Diffraction Pattern (EBSP) obtained by an Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FE- SEM), is 25% or more. The Examiner maintained the following rejections: Claims 2-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogura (JP 2000-328157, published Nov. 28, 2000, as translated) (Ans. 2, 3). Claims 2-21 were provisionally rejected as unpatentable on the grounds of obviousness-type double patenting over co-pending Application 12/374,154 (Final Action 4, 5; Ans. 3, 4). 2 ANALYSIS Initially, we note that the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection is not addressed by 1A .. ppellants (generally App. Br.). Accordingly, we summarily affirm this rejection. With respect to the § 103 rejection, after consideration of the record before us, a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants' position that the Examiner has not shown that Ogura teaches or would have suggested the copper alloy sheet having specific microstructure properties as recited in claims 2, 4, and 6 for essentially the same reasons as set out in the related decision of Appeal No. 2016-000985 of related co-pending Application 12/374,154. Each of independent claims 2, 4, and 6 in that case 2Co-pending 12/374,154 is also on appeal (Appeal No. 2016-000985). 3 Appeal2015-001617 Application 13/585,076 recite a similar copper alloy sheet composition having the same properties that are the focus of the appeal in this case, and the Examiner applied same § 103 rejection for both cases. Under these circumstances, we reverse the § 103 rejection on appeal. DECISION The Examiner's provisional obviousness type double patenting rejection is affirmed; however, the Examiner's§ 103 rejection is reversed. The decision of the Examiner 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)(l). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation