Carl Fruth

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2019

14467225 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019)

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.
14/467,225 08/25/2014 CARL FRUTH ASC-14121 1140
24131 7590 08/06/2019
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
DARNELL, BAILEIGH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2019 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):
boxoa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CARL FRUTH
____________

Appeal 2018-008536
Application 14/467,225
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a final
rejection of claims 1–8 and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 FIT FRUTH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIEN GMBH is the
Applicant/Appellant. FIT AG is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008536
Application 14/467,225

2
The invention is directed to manufacturing three-dimensional objects
by selective solidification of a build material applied in layers. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter claimed and is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for manufacturing three-dimensional
objects by selective solidification of a build material applied in
layers, the apparatus comprising:
a build platform, disposed in an X-Y plane, on which at
least one three-dimensional object is generated in layers;
a storage unit storing the build material;
a heating element, at least partly overlapping said build
platform, for inputting thermal energy into the build material,
said heating element having at least two simultaneously usable
functional openings formed therein, wherein one of said at least
two functional openings being a material pass-through passing
through the build material supplied from above said heating
element and another of said at least two functional openings
being a radiation pass-through; and
a drive device for generating a relative motion in an X-Y
direction between said build platform and said heating element.

Independent claim 10 is directed to a method essentially using the
apparatus of claim 1.
Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s decision to finally reject
claims 1–8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Philippi (US
8,073,315 B2, issued December 6, 2011) and Greiwe (EP 1 674 192 A1,
published June 28, 2006, and relying on an English machine translation
dated November 28, 2016). App. Br. 4; Final Act. 3.
Appellant relies on the same arguments to address the rejection of
claims 1–8 and 10. See generally App. Br. Accordingly, we select claim 1
Appeal 2018-008536
Application 14/467,225

3
as representative of the subject matter claimed and decide the appeal based
on Appellant’s arguments made in support of the patentability of claim 1.
OPINION
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal Brief and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and the Answer,
we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1–8 and 10 for the
reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites an apparatus for manufacturing three-dimensional
objects by selective solidification of a build material applied in layers that
comprises a heating element having at least two simultaneously usable
functional openings formed therein with one functional opening providing a
build material pass-through and the other functional opening providing a
radiation pass-through.
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Philippi
discloses a laser sintering device for manufacturing three-dimensional
objects by selective solidification of a build material applied in layers that
differs from the claimed invention in that (1) the heating element of
Philippi’s device does not have at least two simultaneously usable functional
openings as claimed and (2) Philippi’s device does not supply the build
material from above said heating element. Final Act. 3–4; App. Br. 5–6.
The Examiner finds Greiwe discloses the use of a slotted plate having two
openings, one of which serves as a build material pass-through and the other
serving as a radiation (laser beam) pass through, where the slotted plate is
used to make a lightweight 3-D construction. Final Act. 4; Greiwe Figure 1,
Appeal 2018-008536
Application 14/467,225

4
¶ 14. The Examiner also finds that Greiwe discloses supplying the build
material from above the slotted plate and through an opening of the slotted
plate to facilitate correct positioning of the build material prior to heating the
material with the laser. Final Act. 5; Greiwe Figure 1, ¶ 7. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Philippi’s device by using Greiwe’s technique of supplying build
material for the manufacturing of 3-D objects in place of Philippi’s
technique for the benefits disclosed by Greiwe. Final Act. 5; Ans. 8. The
Examiner also determines that it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to incorporate Greiwe’s build material device and slotted plate into
Philippi’s heating element to ensure pre-heating of the applied build material
before subsequent radiant heating. Final Act. 4; see Philippi col. 2, ll. 38–
43.
The premise of Appellant’s argument is that one skilled in the art
would not combine the teachings of the cited art because (1) Philippi teaches
supplying the build material below the heating element while Greiwe
supplies it above the slotted plate and (2) Greiwe does not teach preheating
the build material and, thus, the combination would result in eliminating
Philippi’s preheating. App. Br. 7. Thus, Appellant contends that there is no
motivation to put Greiwe’s slotted plate and material supply delivery in
Philippi’s heating element 12. Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
As the Examiner notes, Appellant’s arguments do not adequately
address the Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of the prior art.
Appeal 2018-008536
Application 14/467,225

5
Ans. 4–5; In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
As the Examiner finds, Greiwe teaches an alternate technique for
supplying build material for the manufacturing of 3-D objects where both
the build material and the heat source for fixing the build material are
supplied through a slotted plate above the build surface to provide a uniform
distribution of the material. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 6; Greiwe Figure 1, ¶¶ 7,
22. Given that both Philippi and Greiwe are directed to manufacturing 3-D
objects by supplying build material to a support surface (Philippi col. 1,
ll. 34–36, col. 2, ll. 24–37; Greiwe ¶¶ 1, 33–35), Appellant has not explained
sufficiently why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary
creativity, would not have been capable of modifying Philippi’s device by
substituting Philippi’s disclosed technique for supplying build material with
Greiwe’s technique to ensure that the build material is correctly positioned
when forming a 3-D object. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.”); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the
art).
Appellant’s argument that Greiwe does not teach a preheating device
(App. Br. 7) is also unavailing because it does not address the Examiner’s
reasons for combining the teachings of the cited art (Final Act. 4–5).
Appellant has not explained adequately why the incorporation of Greiwe’s
Appeal 2018-008536
Application 14/467,225

6
technique for supplying and heating the build material would lead one
skilled in the art to eliminate Philippi’s preheating of the build material.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims
1–8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents and
we give above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1–8 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED