Ex Parte Nakaoka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2018

14342650 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/342,650 03/04/2014 Takehiro Nakaoka 22850 7590 09/04/2018 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 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. 430789US41PCT 1033 EXAMINER YOON, KEVIN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1735 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2018 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): patentdocket@oblon.com OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAKEHIRO NAKAOKA, KAZUYUKI TSUTSUMI, HIDETO OYAMA, HIDETAKA KANAHASHI, HITOSHI ISHIDA, DAIKI TAKAHASHI, and DAISUKE MATSUW AKA Appeal 2017-001100 Application 14/342,650 1 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the November 25, 2015 final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13. An oral hearing was held on August 16, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. 1 The real party in interest is KABUSHIKI KAISHA KOBE SEIKO SHO. (Appeal Br. 1 ). Appeal 2017-001100 Application 14/342,650 The Examiner maintains the following rejection presented for appeal: Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jackson (US 6,868,896, B2, issued Mar. 22, 2005) and Rummel (GB 2013542 A, published Aug. 15, 1979). Appellants' invention generally relates to slab continuous casting which is a technique wherein a metal slab is continuously formed by charging molten metal into a bottomless rectangular-shaped mold, wherein the molten metal as solidified in the bottomless mold and pulled downward therefrom. (Spec. ,r,r 1-2). Claims 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A continuous casting apparatus for continuously casting a slab formed of titanium or titanium alloy, the continuous casting apparatus comprising: a bottomless rectangular-shaped mold into which molten titanium or titanium alloy may be charged, solidified and drawn out; at least one electromagnetic stirring device configured to stir the surface of the molten metal or the vicinity of the surface by electromagnetic induction using an alternating current, wherein the at least one electromagnetic stirring device is configured to provide a magnetic field inducing a horizontal flow in a portion of the molten titanium or titanium alloy charged into the mold, the horizontal flow being at a portion of the mold being affected by the magnetic field to induce the horizontal flow; and a plasma arc heating device configured to heat the surface of the molten titanium or titanium alloy charged into the mold using plasma arcs. 2 Appeal 2017-001100 Application 14/342,650 OPINI0N2 We have reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability. We will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and the Final action. The Examiner found Jackson teaches a continuous casting device that does not contain at least one electromagnetic stirring device for molten metal as required by the claimed invention. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2). The Examiner found Rummel shows horizontal flow at a portion of the mold affected by the magnetic field to induce the horizontal flow, which is denoted as regions A---C in the annotated figure 1 reproduced below: Annotated Rummel figure 1 depicts an electromagnetic stirring device in a bottomless mold identifying the portions that the Examiner determines 2 Appellants' arguments for the patentability of the independent claims are substantially the same. Appellants have also not presented arguments specific to every claim on appeal. Consequently, the non-argued claims will stand or fall with independent claim 1. See 37 C. F. R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 3 Appeal 2017-001100 Application 14/342,650 exhibits horizontal flow at a portion of the mold affected by the magnetic field. (Ans. 6). The Examiner reasons the magnetic field of Rummel induces both the vertical and horizontal flows. The Examiner also reasons there would not be any horizontal flow in Rummel without the magnetic field. (Final Act. 6; Ans. 6). The Examiner asserts the horizontal flow at the regions A and B are portions of the mold affected by the magnetic field (not affected by gravity). (Ans. 5---6). Appellants do not dispute Jackson teaches a continuous casting device that fails to contain at least one electromagnetic stirring device for molten metal. (Appeal Br. 5). Appellants have not asserted that it would have been unobvious to combine the teachings of Jackson and Rummel. (See Appeal Brief generally). Appellants argue the structure resulting from the combination of Rummel and Jackson is not the same as the claimed invention because the coils of Rummel do not affect return flow. (Appeal Br. 8). Appellants argue Rummel does not disclose an electromagnetic stirring device in a bottomless mold that includes horizontal flow being at a portion of the mold being affected by the magnetic field to induce the horizontal flow as required by the independent claims. (Appeal Br. 4--8). Appellants argue the coils 4 of Rummel do not directly induce a horizontal flow of the molten metal as required by the claimed invention. (Appeal Br. 5---6). Appellants specifically argue: The horizontal flows shown by the arcuate arrows "A" and "B" in the annotated Fig. 1 of Rummel reproduced below are not horizontal flows at a portion of the mold being affected by the magnetic field to induce horizontal flow. Instead, much like the turning flows DI' and D2' generated by horizontal flows of the present invention (paragraph 4 Appeal 2017-001100 Application 14/342,650 [0044]), the flows A and Bare reversal flows that will necessarily occur in the molten metal once it has left the influence of the electromagnetic field, to permit the return flow near the axial center of the mold. That is, the coils in Rummel induce an axial flow, whereas the horizontal reversal flows A and B are not horizontal flows "in a portion of the molten titanium or titanium alloy charged into the mold being affected by the magnetic field." (Appeal Br. 5---6). Appellants' arguments lack persuasive merit. The Examiner identified in Rummel portions of the mold where horizontal flow occurs near the surface of the molten metal as well as in a lower portion of the molten metal. (See regions A---C in the annotated figure 1 reproduced above). Appellants have not disputed that Rummel discloses horizontal flow occurring at these locations. The disclosure by Rummel that the magnetic field causes vertical flow does not indicate that the magnetic field does not influence the horizontal flow. It is not been disputed that the flow of the molten metal within the casting device is result of magnetic fields. The Examiner reasons that the horizontal flow occurring in Rummel would not occur without the magnetic fields. (Final Act. 6). Appellants have not refuted the Examiner's position that the horizontal flow of the molten metal at the various locations, which did not include surrounding walls, could have occurred in the absence of influence by the magnetic field. Specifically, Appellants have not explained how horizontal flow could occur at region 5 Appeal 2017-001100 Application 14/342,650 "A" and "B" of the annotated figure in the absence of influence by the magnetic field. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and those given above. 3 ORDER The Examiner's obviousness rejection is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l ). AFFIRMED 3 Our decision does not rely on Fang (US 5,246,060) cited by the Examiner as evidence of the axial extent of a magnetic field induced by a coil. (Ans. 8). 6