Ex Parte Dolabdjian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613316062 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) 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. 13/316,062 12/09/2011 Haig Dolabdjian 93884-000510US-827392 2550 20350 7590 12/29/2016 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAIG DOLABDJIAN and ROLAND STRIETZEL Appeal 2015-003950 Application 13/316,0621 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the December 31, 2013 Final rejection of claims 1—7.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 The real party in interest is BEGO Bremer Goldschlagerei Wilh Herbst GmbH & Co. KG. (App. Br. 3). 2 According to Appellants, claims 8—15 have been withdrawn from consideration. (App. Br. 5). Appeal 2015-003950 Application 13/316,062 Appellants’ invention relates to a method of making a shaped body for use as a dental part. (Spec. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reproduced from the Brief below: 1. A method of making a shaped body for use as a dental part, the shaped body having a density, the method comprising: guiding a laser beam over a powder layer using a computer- controlled laser scanning system based on data representing the shape of a cross-section through the shaped body, the powder comprising a biocompatible material, the biocompatible material having a grain size up to about 50 pm, to create a layer in the shaped body; substantially melting the powder with the laser beam; and repeating the guiding and melting over successive powder layers using successive cross-sectional representative data so as to build the shaped body entirely from layers of laser- melted material. The Examiner has maintained the following rejection:3 Claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Griffith et al., Free Form Fabrication of Metallic Components Using Faser Engineered Net Shaping (FENS), paper presented at the Solid Free Form Fabrication Symposium, Austin, Texas, August 12- 14, 1996 (hereinafter “Griffith”), van der Zel, US 4,937,928 issued July 3, 1990 (hereinafter “van der Zel”) and as evidenced by Vines, US 4,129,680 issued Dec. 12, 1978 (hereinafter “Vines”). 3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §112. (Ans. 7). 2 Appeal 2015-003950 Application 13/316,062 OPINION Appellants present arguments specifically directed to independent claim 1. (App. Br. 12—17). Therefore, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claim.4 We sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Answer, and below. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a complete statement of the rejection. (Final Act. 4—7). Appellants’ arguments for patentability of the appealed subject matter lack persuasive merit. The Examiner’s conclusion that the cited prior art establishes it would have been obvious to utilize the known techniques for the formation of dental parts as required by the claimed invention is supported by the present record. The Examiner has established that the techniques required by the claimed invention were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. (Final Act. 4—7). KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (the predictable use of known prior art elements performing the same functions they have been known to perform is normally obvious; the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results). In rejecting the independent claim, the Examiner found Griffith substantially discloses the claimed method of making a shaped body by guiding a laser beam over a powder layer using a computer-controlled laser 4 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter on appeal. 3 Appeal 2015-003950 Application 13/316,062 scanning system based on data representing the shape of a cross-section through the shaped body. (Final Act. 4—5; Griffith5 ’96, 2601). The Examiner found Griffith discloses, and Appellants do not dispute, Inconel 625 is a suitable powder which is biocompatible (citing Vines). (Final Act. 5; App. Br. generally, Griffith RESULTS section). The Examiner found van der Zel teaches using CAD/CAM software to make dental crowns. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner determined the particle size utilized in the process was a result effective variable. (Id.). Griffith also discloses particle size influences the scattering of the radiation. (Griffith ’96, 2607). Appellants argue none of the references disclose the grain size up to about 50 pm as required by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 13). Appellants further argue there is no relationship between the particle size and geometrical resolution of the finished product. (Id. at 13—14). Appellants’ arguments regarding the particle size are not persuasive. As pointed out by the Examiner, Griffith teaches utilizing particles having a size of -325 mesh which corresponds to about 45 pm. (Ans. 6). The Examiner also correctly noted that Griffith teaches the advantages of using smaller particle size. (Ans. 6; Griffith RESULTS section). Appellants have not refuted the Examiner’s statement regarding the particle size in the responsive brief. Appellants argue that the structures of Griffith are not exemplary of dental parts which have various angle surfaces. (App. Br. 14). 5 Griffith and Halloran, Freeform Fabrication of Ceramics via Stereolithography, 79 J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2601—2608 (1996) (“Griffith ’96”). 4 Appeal 2015-003950 Application 13/316,062 We agree with the Examiner, Answer 8, that the claims are not limited to specific structures having various angle surfaces. Appellants argue that Griffith and van der Zel do not teach producing dental parts utilizing additives manufacturing techniques like SLS/SLM as claimed. (App. Br. 16). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. It is not disputed that Griffith teaches additive SLS/SLM manufacturing techniques. It is noted Appellants argue that van der Zel discloses using subtractive manufacturing techniques to form dental parts. However prior to use of the subtractive techniques, van der Zel discloses the use of additives have techniques to build the surface which is subsequently grinding down to provide angles. The claimed subject matter does not require specific angles in the final product. Moreover, it is noted that Appellants recognize the technique of forming shaped bodies made up of a sintering powder which are built up and layers by exposing each layer to energy was conventional and described by US 4,863,538. (Spec. 1 8). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—7 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. ORDER The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—7 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation