Ex Parte Herzog et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2012

10415195 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

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.
10/415,195 11/13/2003 Frank Herzog 11318.0080USWO 5437
23552 7590 12/12/2012
MERCHANT & GOULD PC
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRANK HERZOG and KERSTIN HERZOG
____________________

Appeal 2010-007001
Application 10/415,195
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: NEAL E. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007001
Application 10/415,195
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
46, 48, 50-53 and 55-78. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a device for sintering, removing material
and/or labeling by means of electromagnetically bundled radiation and
method for operating the device. Claim 46, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
46. A laser sintering and/or a laser surface-processing device
for sintering, removing material and/or labeling on a workpiece
by electromagnetically bundled radiation with
stereolithographic methods, the device comprising:
a housing defining a plurality of construction spaces,
at least one scanner positioned in the construction spaces,
a laser-light source, wherein a beam of the laser-light
source is guided through the at least one scanner onto a surface
of the workpiece or a material layer to be sintered;
a vertically-displaceable workpiece platform in the
construction spaces,
a material supply device comprising a coater for
supplying sintering material in powder, paste, or liquid form
from a supply container into a process area above the workpiece
platform;
a scanner support having a motor drive and supporting
the at least one scanner, wherein the scanner support is slidably
movable to move the at least one scanner through the plurality
of construction spaces above the workpiece by the motor drive;
wherein the scanner support is arranged above the workpiece
platform in a vertically-displaceable manner;
a control computer connected to and controlling the
motor drive during a construction process for the movement of
the at least one scanner above the workpiece platform; wherein
Appeal 2010-007001
Application 10/415,195
3
in construction zones at edge regions of the workpiece, the
scanner deflects the laser beam with small angles relative to a
vertical axis; wherein the control computer is configured for
separate control of motor drive elements of the cross-slide
arrangement and of a scanner mirror; and
wherein the light source comprises a sintering laser fixed
to a machine frame connected to a cross-slide arrangement.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ackerman
Hofmann
Keicher
US 4,540,867
US 6,554,600 B1
US 6,811,744 B2
Sep. 10, 1985
Apr. 29, 2003
Nov. 2, 2004

REJECTION
Claims 46, 48, 50-53 and 55-78 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keicher, Hofmann and Ackerman. Ans.
3.

OPINION
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 46 is in error. As the
remaining claims are not separately argued, the rejection of claims 48, 50-53
and 55-78 will stand or fall with the rejection of independent claim 46.
In particular, Appellants assert that the movement of a movable
scanner and scanner support is patentably distinct from the movement of a
mirror. App. Br. 9-10. The Examiner does not appear to dispute this
characterization. Keicher, which describes a movable laser head 11, 480
with a mirror 438, is said to lack a laser scanner motor. Ans. 4, first full
paragraph. The Examiner correctly found that Ackerman describes a laser
Appeal 2010-007001
Application 10/415,195
4
beam scanned by an oscillating (moving) mirror and concluded that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the motor-driven
scanner in the Keicher system. Ans. 5. While the Examiner has somewhat
inartfully described the movement of the scanner and the movement of the
mirror as “the same or [functionally] equivalent” (Ans. 6), this is not seen as
a statement that the mirror of Keicher alone is the separately movable
scanner mirror. We agree that Keicher alone does not show “separate control
of motor drive elements of the cross-slide arrangement and of a scanner
mirror” as required by claim 46, but this does not directly relate to what is
shown by the combination of Keicher, Hofmann and Ackerman in the
rejection of claim 46. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant argues that claim 46 requires elements in addition to the
movable scanner mirror. App. Br. 10-11. To the extent that Appellants are
specifically arguing the elements1 in the second to last limitation of claim
46, the Examiner has correctly identified the description of these limitations
in the combined teachings of Keicher, Hofmann and Ackerman.
Keicher shows a computer control 129, 129a for the entire deposition
process. Ans. 4 and Keicher, col 17, ll. 1-2. Keicher shows movement of a
laser head 11 above a work platform at 16. Ans. 3-4. Hofmann shows
vertical adjustment of a work platform 70 under a sintering laser with a

1 Where an Appellants’ remarks do not point to any specific language within
the claims to distinguish over the prior art, those remarks amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention. Such
allegations will not be considered an argument for separate patentability. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2010-007001
Application 10/415,195
5
scanner 5. Ans. 4. Ackerman shows a scanner with an oscillating mirror at
column 4, lines 30-31. Ans. 4. The scanner of Ackerman deflects the beam
over relatively small angles as shown in Figure 4a.
The proposed combination, where the scanner of Ackerman is used as
the laser of Keicher with the height adjustment mechanism of Hofmann,
therefore falls within the scope of claim 46 as the claim does not limit the
type of movement of the mirror or, being directed to an apparatus, require
actual performance of the particular steps of the process of the head moving
through various construction spaces.
With regard to the general argument that there is no motivation to
combine the references (App. Br. 11), the Examiner has identified ease of
operation as a reason to combine the references. Ans. 5, 7. We understand
this to refer to the operation is described at, for example, column 1, lines 6-
27 of Ackermann. These expected benefits, which are readily apparent in the
objectives of Ackermann, include efficient utilization of a laser beam and
uniform distribution of laser power for localized zone melting, a function
also required for Keicher’s sintering. See Ackermann column 1, lines 9-17;
Keicher column 2, lines 28-29. Appellants’ general assertion that there is no
motivation is therefore unpersuasive.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 46, 48, 50-53 and 55-78 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2010-007001
Application 10/415,195
6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh