12381835 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

Ex Parte Bolms et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 2016

12381835 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/381,835 03/17/2009 22116 7590 09/30/2016 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230 Orlando, FL 32817 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hans-Thomas Bolms 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. 2007P25566US 7028 EXAMINER DUNNER, DIALLO IGWE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2016 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): IPDadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HANS-THOMAS BOLMS, JAN MUNZER, THOMAS PODGORSKI, and LUTZ WOLKERS Appeal2014-009598 Application 12/381,835 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hans-Thomas Bolms et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Non-Final Action, dated September 17, 2013 ("Non-Final Act."), rejecting claims 10- 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-009598 Application 12/3 81, 83 5 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' clairned subject matter relates to "'a rnethod for producing a hole, with side-delimiting flanks, in a component." Spec., para. 2. Claim 10 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below. 10. A method for producing a hole with side-delimiting flanks in a component via a laser located at a top of the hole, the method compnsmg: removing a plurality of partial volumes of the hole such that each of the partial volumes is removed from the hole separately by tracing a side flank of the hole with a laser beam so that a material of the respective partial volume where the laser beam is directed is vaporized, until the respective partial volume is removed the tracing includes moving the laser when a portion of the side flank is exposed so the laser beam is directed to a further portion of the side flank located deeper relative to the top of the hole, wherein the laser beam is oriented so that it includes an angle of more than 8Â° with each traced side flank. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied upon the following evidence: Richter Maeda Zij 1 (hereafter "Joannes") 1 US 2003/0127438 Al US 2004/0164060 Al WO 2007 /043884 A2 July 10, 2003 Aug. 26, 2004 April 19, 2007 1 The first inventor named on this reference is Joannes Leonardus Jurrian Zijl. The Examiner and Appellants refer to the reference as "Joannes." We adopt this nomenclature herein for consistency. 2 Appeal2014-009598 Application 12/3 81, 83 5 REJECTIONS The Non-Final Action includes the following rejections: 1. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Joannes. 2. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Richter. 3. Claims 10-26 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Richter and Joannes. 4. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Richter, Joannes, and Maeda. ANALYSIS First Ground of Rejection: Anticipated by Joannes The Examiner found that Joannes discloses a method for producing a hole as called for in claim 10, including: [R]emoving a plurality of partial volumes 24 of the hole 24, 25 such that each of the partial volumes 24, 25 is removed from the hole 24, 25 separately by tracing a side flank of the hole 24, 25 with a laser beam 12, 20 so that a material of the respective partial volume 24, 25 where the laser beam 12, 20 is directed is vaporized. Non-Final Act 2. Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding that Joannes teaches tracing a side flank of the hole with a laser beam is in enTir because "Joannes teaches the laser beam is moved after a first cut but is silent on if the laser beam is moved during the cutting and[,] if so[,] how it is rnoved or if the cut is made by a single pulse of the laser." Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner responds that "'Joannes does teach that a cut passing through the canier can be made in multiple successive cutting operations." Ans. 2; see Joannes 4, lL 10---11. In particular, the Examiner points to Figure 3 Appeal2014-009598 Application 12/3 81, 83 5 2a of Joannes as showing "laser beam 20 first produces a partial hole at an angle of al." Ans. 3. The Examiner explains that "[i]n figure 2b the laser beam 20 finishes the hole 25 by tracing (Le. imaginary boundary lines) the first partial hole 24 at a second angle a.2." Id. According to the Examiner, Joannes's laser beam "takes an initial path angle to produce a partial hole and a second path angle that traces a small portion of the first partial hole's edge to finish the hole," such "'that the laser beam is moved during the cutting of hole in partial volumes." Id at 5. The Examiner's finding that Joannes anticipates the removing step of claim 10 appears to be premised on a construction of "tracing" that is not consistent with Appellants' Specification, which describes: The laser beam 4 is further directed onto the component surface until it reaches the left-hand flank. The laser 5 is then moved to the right in the drawing so that the laser beam 4 strikes component material which is still present in the partial volume 2a, which material is then vaporized in tum as far as the left-hand flank 3a. In this way, the entire flank 3a of the partial volume 2a is traced with the laser beam 4. Spec., para. 23. In light of the Specification, we understand the claimed '"tracing a side flank of the hole with a laser beam so that a material of the respective partial volume where the laser beam is directed is vaporized" to require that, as material is removed by the laser beam during cutting, the laser beam moves and foHows the side flank. Joannes discloses that '"a cut passing through the carrier can be made in multiple successive cutting operations." Joannes 3, IL l 0---11 (emphasis added). Specifically, Joannes discloses, with reference to Figure 2A, that "'a cut 24 is made with a first cutting operation[,] which does not pass 4 Appeal2014-009598 Application 12/3 81, 83 5 completely through carrier 22," and, "[i]n a second cutting operation, which is shown schematically in figure 2B, a cut 25 is continued further such that it now does pass 10 completely through can-ier 22." id. at 5, IL 7----10. \Ve agree with Appellants that Joannes is silent as to whether the laser beam moves and follows a path of a side flank during cutting. To the extent that Joannes describes successive cutting operations and changing the angle of the laser beam (id. at 3, lL 12-13, Figs 2A, 2B), Joannes does not disclose the 1aser beam moving to trace a side flank as rnaterial of each partial volume is vaporized. T'l1us, the Examiner's finding that Joannes anticipates a method for producing a hole including "'removing a plurality of partial volumes of the hole ... separately by tracing a side flank of the hole with a laser beam so that a rnaterial of the respective partial volume where the laser beam is directed is vaporized," as recited in claim 10, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Joannes. Second Ground of Rejection: Anticipated by Richter The Examiner found that Richter discloses a method for producing a hole with a laser as called for in claim l 0, including "wherein the laser beam - <-..- 10 is oriented so that it inc 1udes an angle of more than 8Â° with each traced , __ , side flank 11, 12." Non-Final Act 3 (citing Richter, paras. 9-11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 25---31; Figs. 1----4). The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that "Richter teaches of using a laser beam 10 at an acute angle 4 approximately 30 degrees to produce a first partial volume of a hole 2 (Para. 28; Figure 4)" 5 Appeal2014-009598 Application 12/3 81, 83 5 and also "teaches of producing a second partial volume of a hole 2 with a laser beam 10 at a second angle 13 of approximately 16 degrees from the 30 degree axis." Ans. 6. Appellants argue that Richter fails to disclose a laser beam angle of more than 8Â° with each traced side flank because the cited portions of Richter do not "teach [the] angle of the laser beam in relation to the traced flank." Appeal Br. 10. We agree with Appellants. Richter discloses that, "'firstly, an aperture portion 7 of substantially circular cross section is formed by laser driHing at an acute angle 4 of approximately 30Â° in relation to the outer, second surface 6 of the component wa113 of the turbine blade 1." Richter, para. 28. Richter also discloses that, "[i]n a second step, the funnel 9 is then fon11ed by laser removal, beginning from the outer, second surface 6 of the component wall 3." Id., para. 29. Richter describes that, "as can be seen well in the cross- sectional view of FIG. 4, the first aperture angle 13 in relation to the centre axis 8 towards one side is large and is approximately 16Â°." Id, para. 30. Although Richter discloses fonning cylindrical aperture portion 7 with first laser beam angle of 30Â° relative to the surface 6 of component wall 3, and forming funnel 9 with second laser beam angle of 16Â° relative to centre axis 8 of cylindrical aperture portion 7, the Examiner does not point to, nor do we discern, any disclosure in Richter regarding the angle of the laser beam relative to a side flank of the aperture, rnuch less a disclosure of the laser beam oriented such that the angle betvveen the laser beam and each traced side flank is greater than 8Â°, as ca11ed for in claim 10. For these reasons, the Examiner's finding that Richter anticipates the subject matter of claim l 0 is not supported by a preponderance of the 6 Appeal2014-009598 Application 12/3 81, 83 5 evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of clairn 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Richter. Third and Fourth Grounds of Rejection: Obviousness based on Richter and one or more of Joannes and Maeda. The rejections of claims 10---30 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rely on the same unsupported findings as to the disclosure of Richter relied upon in the second ground of rejection. See Non-Final Act. 4---9. The Examiner did not make any findings as to the scope and content of Joannes or Maeda that would cure the deficiency in Richter discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 10- 30. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10-30 is REVERSED. REVERSED 7