Ex Parte Keremes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13362425 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
13/362,425 01/31/2012 John J. Keremes 60327US02; 4312
67097-2632PUS1
26096 7590 12/21/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LAW, NGA LEUNG V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN J. KEREMES, JEFFREY D. HAYNES,
YOUPING GAO, and DANIEL EDWARD MATEJCZYK
Appeal 2015-006529
Application 13/362,425
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—8, 16, and 17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed July 11, 2014
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 19, 2014 (“App. Br.”), and
the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 7, 2015 (“Ans.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-006529
Application 13/362,425
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. An additive manufacturing process comprising:
detecting stress within a part during fabrication within a
defined workspace with at least one sensor disposed within a
base supporting the part;
pausing fabrication steps responsive to a detected stress being
within a predetermined range;
performing a stress relieving process on the part within the
same workspace in which fabrication is performed; and
restarting part fabrication on the part within the defined work
space once the stress relieving process is complete.
App. Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1—4, 7, 8, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Woods (US 2011/0008530 Al,
published Jan. 13, 2011) (hereinafter “Woods”) in view of Schillen
et al. (US 2009/0020901 Al, published Jan. 22, 2009) (hereinafter
“Schillen”); and
2. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Woods in view of Schillen, and further in view
of Islam et al. (US 6,269,540, issued Aug. 7, 2001) (hereinafter
“Islam”).
DISCUSSION
Appellants’ arguments focus on limitations that appear in claim 1.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
2
Appeal 2015-006529
Application 13/362,425
dependent claims 2—8, 16, and 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).3 Consequently,
we select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims, and claims 2—20
will stand or fall with claim 1.
Woods discloses a method for manufacturing a metal part that
includes stress relieving the metal part without removing the metal part from
a vacuumed chamber. Woods 17. The method in Woods may include
depositing a metal wire onto a metal plate within a vacuumed chamber,
directing an electron beam onto the wire as it is deposited onto the metal
plate to melt the metal wire, bonding it to the metal plate and/or preceding
layers of metal wire, monitoring various stress indicators of the metal part
during deposition of the metal wire, and applying electric current to the
metal plate to relieve a desired amount of stress when one or more of the
stress indicators exceeds a given threshold of acceptable stress. Id. at || 10-
11.
Schillen discloses a method for producing a three-dimensional object
that includes depositing a solidifyable material (e.g., fuseable metal or metal
alloy) on an object carrier, supplying energy capable of solidifying the
solidifyable material, and sensing, measuring, and/or adjusting stress and/or
strain during fabrication of the object. Schillen || 5, 24, 31. Schillen
teaches that the sensors can be provided “in or at or close to the building
region/plane.” Id. 124; see also id. at || 14—17 (teaching that the sensor for
measuring strain is preferably arranged at least at a region selected from: in
or at the building region (where yet unsolidified material is provided for
3 Because we find no deficiency in Rejection 1, Appellants’ arguments to the
effect that the additional cited references fail to cure the deficiency in
Rejection 1 do not amount to a separate substantive argument with respect to
the claims subject to Rejection 2. App. Br. 6.
3
Appeal 2015-006529
Application 13/362,425
solidification), in or at the object carrier, in or at the solidifyable material
carrier/provider, in or at the frame carrying the solidifyable material
carrier/provider, and particularly in or at the frame carrying the object
carrier.).
The Examiner finds Woods discloses all the recitations of claim 1,
including detecting stress within a part during fabrication within a defined
workspace, but does not disclose “at least one sensor disposed within a base
supporting the part.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Schillen, which
teaches a method similar to Woods, teaches placing strain sensors within the
base supporting the metal part to be built to detect and monitor stress within
the part. Id. The Examiner finds that because of Woods’ desire to monitor
stress of its metal part during the manufacturing process, one of ordinary
skill in the art would be motivated to place sensors within a base supporting
the metal part, as taught by Schillen, with a reasonable expectation that it
would provide a successful means of detecting stresses within the metal part
during Woods’ manufacturing process. Final Act. 5.
First, Appellants argue that “heat introduced by the electric current
imparted on the Woods metal plate 14 would result in stress and strain due
to thermal growth” and “[sjuch stress and strain would so distort any
measurement as to render such sensors and measurements useless for the
intended purpose.” App. Br. 4. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection because it is not supported by
any factual evidence. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(argument by counsel cannot take the place of evidence). Schillen teaches
using strain sensors in a building region that is subjected to electromagnetic
energy. Schillen || 14—17. Appellants have not demonstrated that sensors
4
Appeal 2015-006529
Application 13/362,425
like the ones disclosed in Schillen would not have been capable of
withstanding heat introduced by an electric current in Woods or explained
why one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity,
would not have insulated the sensors when placing them within Woods’
metal plate to avoid any distortion in the sensors measurements. 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 id. at 418 (In
making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.”).
Next, Appellants contend that “providing electric current directly to
the Woods metal plate 14 teaches away from placing sensitive stress
measurement devices such as strain gauges or sensors in the heated plate”
because “one skilled in the art would understand the potential for damage
[and] inaccuracy and not even consider such a modification.” App. Br. 4—5.
Similar to their first argument, Appellants’ contention here is unpersuasive
because it is merely unsupported attorney argument. As the Examiner points
out, there is nothing in Woods that would discourage one of ordinary skill in
the art from placing strain gauges or sensors in its heated plate. Ans. 8; see
also In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A reference may be
said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.”). Moreover, Appellants have not explained why one
of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not
5
Appeal 2015-006529
Application 13/362,425
have insulated the sensors when placing them within Woods’ heated plate to
avoid damage and inaccuracy.
Finally, Appellants argue that “modification of Woods to remove the
electric current from the metal plate 14 to support the installation of strain
gauges would completely change the intended operation of Woods.” App.
Br. 5. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because the Examiner
proposes placing sensors, as taught by Schillen, in a base supporting Woods’
metal part, not removing the electric current from Woods’ metal plate. See
Final Act. 5. Appellants do not identify error in the Examiner’s proposed
modification in support of the rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1—8, 16, and 17 are
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).
AFFIRMED
6