(English) An Analysis of the Apple/Liquidmetal Patent Posted on 2013/07/21 by Atakan Peker Paylaş:LinkedInFacebookTwitterE-postaRedditDigg
Thank you for your analysis,
as you say: “The float-glass process is not an easy process to apply to amorphous alloy sheet production as one can see from the abandonment of McRae (US 2003/0183310) patent application.”
But isn`t the innovative step within the patent, the preferred usage of fusible metals with very low melting temperatures. The McRea patent suggests the tin pool to be maintained “at a temperature of 450 to 500 degrees F”, which may not be low enough to cool down the BMG fast enough. Moreover “by the novel combination of the conveyor and the float chamber would allow the conveyor to rapidly cool the BMG forming metal alloy while the float chamber would be used particularly to provide an excellent surface finish to the BMG sheet”
The value as a patent might be arguable, but do you think that with a molten fusible metal bath at 60-80°C and a conveyor rapidly cooling down the BMG, a production of BMG sheets might eventually become feasible?
McRae suggests the tin pool as an example, not as a limitation. McRae (paragraph 15) says: “For purposes of illustration and not limitation, a molten tin pool maintained at a temperature of 450 to 500 degrees F can be used to rapidly solidify a molten amorphous metallic material.” The Examiner provided more prior art and rejected the use of fusible metals as an inventive step.
Regarding your second question, whether the teaching of this patent enables BMG sheet production feasible, I will discuss this in more detail in the next blog.