Kabushiki Kaisha Kobe Seiko Sho (Kobe Steel, Ltd.)Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 20212020003602 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021) 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. 15/509,729 03/08/2017 Yui HOSONO 501253US 8176 22850 7590 06/28/2021 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER CAO NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2021 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): OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM iahmadi@oblon.com patentdocket@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte YUI HOSONO, MASAKI SHIMAMOTO, SHINGO YOSHIDA, and MASATAKA TATEISHI __________ Appeal 2020-003602 Application 15/509,729 Technology Center CA00 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sugiyama.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The word “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Kabushiki Kaisha Kobe Seiko Sho (Kobe Steel, Ltd.). Appeal Brief dated September 24, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 1. 2 CA 2 766 256 A1, to Sugiyama et al., published January 27, 2011 (“Sugiyama”). Appeal 2020-003602 Application 15/509,729 2 The claims on appeal are directed to a method for producing granular metallic iron comprising an agglomeration step and a granulation step. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized. 1. A method for producing granular metallic iron, comprising: an agglomeration step of obtaining agglomerates through agglomeration of a mixture that contains an iron oxide-containing material and a carbonaceous reducing agent; and a granulation step of obtaining granular metallic iron by heating the agglomerates at 1450 to 1500°C, reducing iron oxides in the agglomerates, aggregating generated metallic iron to be granular while separating the metallic iron from slag generated as a by-product, and thereafter cooling and solidifying the metallic iron; wherein agglomerates satisfying all the conditions given by formulas (1) to (3) below are used as the agglomerates: [(total CaO amount + total SiO2 amount + total Al2O3 amount) / total Fe amount] ≥ 0.250 (1) (total CaO amount / total SiO2 amount) ≥ 0.9 (2) [total Al2O3 amount / (total CaO amount + total SiO2 amount + total Al2O3 amount)] x 100 ≥ 9.7 (3), wherein the total CaO amount, the total SiO2 amount, the total Al2O3 amount and the total Fe amount in the formulas (1) to (3) respectively represent the mass percentage of CaO, the mass percentage of SiO2, the mass percentage of Al2O3 and the mass percentage of Fe comprised in the agglomerates. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix i. B. DISCUSSION Sugiyama discloses a method for producing granular metallic iron. According to the Appellant, the Examiner finds that Sugiyama’s method includes the step of preparing carbon briquettes (i.e., the claimed agglomeration step) and the step of producing reduced iron by heating the briquettes in a moving hearth Appeal 2020-003602 Application 15/509,729 3 furnace (i.e., the claimed granulation step). Appeal Br. 5. There appears to be no dispute on this record that the agglomerates prepared according to Sugiyama’s method have values that either overlap or are within the ranges of formulas (1)–(3) recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2–3;3 Appeal Br. 5–6. As for the temperature in Sugiyama’s granulation step, the Appellant contends that “Sugiyama defines the heating temperature to be at the liquidus temperature to increase the crushing strength of the produced reduced iron.” Appeal Br. 5. However, the Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have selected a temperature within the range recited in claim 1 because the claimed temperatures are higher than the liquidus temperature disclosed in Sugiyama. Appeal Br. 5. To support its argument, the Appellant directs our attention to an annotated version of Sugiyama’s Figure 3, reproduced below. Sugiyama’s Figure 3, as annotated by the Appellant, illustrates a MgO-CaO-Al2O3 phase diagram showing the relationship 3 Final Office Action dated February 27, 2019. Appeal 2020-003602 Application 15/509,729 4 between the slag component of carbon composite briquettes and the liquidus temperature. Appeal Br. 7. The Appellant contends that “[t]he area surrounded by the bold lines (0.25≤C/S≤2.0, 0.34≤A/S≤0.52) in Fig. 3 of Sugiyama . . . shows the composition required by this reference.” Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner finds that the bolded area includes a liquidus temperature from 1300°C to 1600°C, and thus teaches a range that encompasses the claimed range (i.e., “1450 to 1500°C”). Ans. 8;4 see also Appeal Br. 7. The Appellant, however, directs our attention to the following disclosure in Sugiyama. Appeal Br. 8. From the test results, CaO/SiO2 of carbon composite briquettes is particularly preferably in the range of 0.25 to 1.0. However, even when an excessive amount of CaO is present in the carbon composite briquettes, a portion of CaO melts and CaO/SiO2 of molten slag can satisfy the range of 0.25 to 1.0. Thus, sintering of metallic iron is promoted by the same action as that described above and the strength of reduced iron is developed. Accordingly, the preferred range of CaO/SiO2 is defined as the range of 0.25 to 2.0 (more preferably 0.25 to 1.5). Sugiyama 12 (emphasis added). The Appellant argues that [t]he foregoing description merely teaches that the strength of reduced iron could be developed when the briquettes of the area surrounded by the bold lines (0.25Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation