Ex Parte Beeck et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2011

10551740 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2011)

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.
10/551,740 09/30/2005 Alexander Ralph Beeck 2002P19478WOUS 4282
28524 7590 09/15/2011
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
SANDERS, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1743
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER RALPH BEECK, BORIS BUBLATH,
NIKOLAI-ALEXANDER DAUS, and
DIRK GOLDSCHMIDT
________________

Appeal 2011-001785
Application 10/551,740
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and BEVERLY A.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 17-18, and 21-28.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 17 is illustrative:
17. A process for producing a shaped object from a powder bed,
comprising:

preparing a powder bed having a first powder mix in a first region and
a second powder mix in a second region, the first and second powder mixes
Appeal 2011-001785
Application 10/551,740

2
differing from each other in at least one of chemical composition and
powder particle size distribution;

forming a first region of the shaped object by a first laser sintering of
the first powder mix;

forming a second region of the shaped object integral with the first
region by a second laser sintering of the second powder mix; and

controlling a laser beam generated during the first and second laser
sintering processes to produce a different sintering temperature over the first
and second regions of the object creating a different degree of densification
in the first and second regions of the shaped object;

wherein the forming of at least one of the first and second regions
comprises controlling the respective laser sintering step to provide different
material properties in the first and second regions of the shaped object.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3):
Deckard 4,863,538 Sept. 05, 1989
Sachs 5,340,656 Aug. 23, 1994
Lewis 5,837,960 Nov. 17, 1998

Wolfgang Loschau et al., Protyping of Complex-Shaped Parts and Tools of
Si/SiC-Ceramics by Selective Laser Sintering in, Ceramics: Getting Into the
2000’s (Part B) 567- 573(P. Vincenzini ed. 1999) (hereafter “Loschau”).

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a process for producing a
shaped object from a powder bed. The powder bed has a first powder mix in
a first region and a second powder mix in a second region, with the mixes
differing from each other in at least one of chemical composition and
particle size distribution. A first laser sinters the first powder mix to form a
first region of the object, and a second laser sinters the second powder mix
to form a second region of the object. The first and second laser beams are
Appeal 2011-001785
Application 10/551,740

3
controlled during the sintering processes to create a different degree of
densification in the first and second regions of the object.
Appealed claims 17, 18, 21-26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deckard in view of Sachs and Lewis.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the stated combination of references further in view of Loschau.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any particular claim
on appeal. Nor do Appellants provide a separate, substantive argument for
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. Accordingly, all the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
Deckard, like Appellants, discloses a process for producing a shaped
object from a powder bed by sintering the powder mix with a laser beam.
As acknowledged by the Examiner, Deckard does not teach sintering a
second powder mix which differs from the first powder mix to form a
second region of the object to provide the first and second regions with a
different density and material properties. However, we fully concur with the
Examiner that the combined teachings of Sachs and Lewis evidence the
obviousness of modifying the process of Deckard to arrive at the claimed
process.
Appeal 2011-001785
Application 10/551,740

4
Sachs, like Appellants and Deckard, discloses a process for making a
shaped object from a powder mix wherein two or more different types of
powders can be used for different regions of the shaped object such that
different physical characteristics can be obtained at such different regions
(col. 11, ll. 15-22). While Sachs uses a binder material rather than a
sintering laser to produce bonded powder material at selected regions, we
agree with the Examiner that the collective teachings of Deckard and Sachs
would have made it obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a
shaped object by bonding different first and second powder mixes by
employing either a sintering laser or a deposited binder material.
Lewis buttresses the conclusion of obviousness by evidencing that it
was known in the art to form shaped objects with regions of different density
at different regions by exposing powder mixes to a laser beam whose power
is controlled and varied while melting the powder (col. 22, ll. 1-5). While
Appellants stress that Lewis melts but does not sinter the powder with a
laser, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
varying the laser power, as taught by Lewis, would be effective for
controlling the degree of melting or sintering the powder mixture and,
consequently, its density and physical properties. Appellants have not
informed us of any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it unobvious to apply the principle of varying laser power to control
density to the sintering process of Deckard.
Appellants contend that
even if Deckard was modified, such that the powder 22 was
positioned in a first dispersion head, and a second powder
was positioned in a second dispersion head, this arrangement
would nevertheless fail to disclose the claimed invention, as
Appeal 2011-001785
Application 10/551,740

5
such an arrangement would involve: (1) successively
applying a first and second powder layer into respective first
and second regions, and (2) successfully applying a binder
material in between each successive powder layer in the first
and second region, to form the layer structure and selectively
vary the material properties of the first and second regions

(App. Br. 6). Appellants maintain that modifying Deckard in such manner
such that two dispersion heads were used would render Deckard
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose since there is no teaching as to how to
move the dispersion heads so as to not interfere with the performance of
Deckard’s laser. However, it is well settled that it is not necessary for a
finding of obviousness under § 103 that all the elements or teachings of one
reference be fully combined with those of another reference. In re Griver,
354 F.2d 377, 381 (CCPA 1966); In re Billingsley, 279 F.2d 689, 691
(CCPA 1960). Hence, it is not required that the process of Deckard be
modified to include the application of binder material and, like the
Examiner, we are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to properly position the location of the lasers in a modified
Deckard process which applies the lasers to different powder mixes.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
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)(v).
AFFIRMED

ssl