Ex Parte Aruga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2016

13585076 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016)

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