Ex Parte Xiong et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

14441971 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/441,971 05/11/2015 Xiaochuan Xiong
104102 7590 01/30/2019
BrooksGroup
48685 Hayes
Shelby Township, MI 48315
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.
P023329-R&D-DPH 2210
EXAMINER
SLIFKA, COLIN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOCHUAN XIONG and JEFF WANG
Appeal2018-003649
Application 14/441,971
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant (GM Global Technology Operations LLC) appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
The claims are to a method for treating a cast iron workpiece and to a
rotational member formed by that method.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for treating a cast iron workpiece to increase a
useful life thereof, the method comprising:
either i) stress relieving the workpiece, or ii) refraining
from stress relieving the workpiece;
Appeal 2018-003 649
Application 14/441,971
machining the workpiece to provide a finish surface
thereon;
deforming the finish surface of the workpiece by rubbing
the finish surface against a blunt tool, thereby forming a
nanocrystallized surface layer at the finish surface; and
nitrocarburizing the workpiece, the nanocrystallized
surface layer accelerating diffusion of nitrogen atoms and
carbon atoms therethrough, the nitrocarburizing taking place:
i) if the workpiece is stress relieved, for a period of time
ranging from about 1 hour to about 2 hours at a temperature
ranging from about 550°C to about 570°C, or
ii) if the workpiece is not stress relieved, for a period of
time ranging from about 5 hours to about 10 hours at a
temperature ranging from about 370°C to about 450°C, thereby
rendering the nanocrystallized surface layer into i) a friction
surface, or ii) a corrosion-resistant surface by the
nitrocarburizing.
Gunzner
Holly
The References
us 5,265,500
US 2008/0000550 Al
Nov. 30, 1993
Jan.3,2008
W.P. Tong et al., Nitriding Iron at Lower Temperatures, 299 Science 686-
88 (2003).
W.L. Li et al., Fabrication of a gradient nano-micro-structured swface
layer on bulk copper by means of a surface mechanical grinding treatment,
59 Scripta Materialia 546-49 (2008).
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
claims 1-10 and 12-15 over Holly in view of Tong and Li, and claim 11
over Holly in view of Tong, Li, and Gunzner.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections.
2
Appeal 2018-003 649
Application 14/441,971
The claims require nitrocarburizing a nanocrystallized-surface cast
iron workpiece for about 1 hour to about 2 hours at about 550QC to about
570QC if the workpiece has been stress relieved, and for about 5 hours to
about 10 hours at about 370QC to about 450QC if the workpiece has not been
stress relieved. To meet that claim requirement the Examiner relies upon the
combined disclosures of Holly and Tong (Final Act. 4).
Holly nitrocarburizes a cast iron brake rotor in a salt bath at a
preferred temperature of 580QC (i-f 60). "The depth of the nitride compound
that is formed is dependent on the length of time ( dwell time) of the brake
rotor at this temperature" (id.). An exemplified combination of temperature
and dwell time, regardless of whether the brake rotor has been stress
relieved, is 579QC for between one and two hours (i1i133, 34, 40).
Tong, before nitriding an iron plate's surface, repeats multidirectional
impacts of the surface with flying 8 mm diameter stainless steel balls to
plastically deform the surface such that coarse grains progressively are
refined into nanocrystalline grains, thereby enhancing the surface layer's
nitrogen diffusion which greatly enhances iron nitriding kinetics so the
nitriding temperature can be as low as 300QC, much lower than conventional
nitriding temperatures above 500QC (pp. 686-688).
The Examiner finds that "Tong teaches that the nanocrystalline
surface allows for lower processing temperatures to avoid deterioration of
the workpiece" (Final Act. 4 ), but the Examiner does not point to support for
that finding in Tong.
The Examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention to select an appropriate
temperature lower than that of Holly, including those temperatures within
3
Appeal 2018-003 649
Application 14/441,971
the range of the instant claim, in order to avoid deterioration of the
workpiece, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
could have done so with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of
success" (Final Act. 4 ), and "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill at the time of the invention to select an appropriate dwell time at the
chosen temperature to achieve the desired treatment depth" (id.).
The Examiner does not establish that the applied references would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to either combination of temperature
and time required by the Appellant's claims for nitrocarburizing a
nanocrystallized-surface cast iron workpiece. Thus, the record indicates that
the Examiner's rejections are based upon impermissible hindsight in view of
the Appellant's disclosure. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis,
and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the
invention from the prior art."). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-10 and 12-15
over Holly in view of Tong and Li, and claim 11 over Holly in view of
Tong, Li, and Gunzner are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4