Ex Parte Mironets et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 11, 201613718134 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 131718,134 12/18/2012 Sergey Mironets 54549 7590 05/13/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY 400 West Maple Road Suite 350 Birmingham, MI 48009 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. PA23327U; 67097-2187US1 CONFIRMATION NO. 9279 EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2016 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 PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGEY MIRONETS, WENDELL V. TWELVES, GRANT 0. COOK III, ROBERT P. DELISLE, AGNES KL UCHA, and WILLIAM J. WARD Appeal2014-008911 Application 13/718, 134 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JULIA HEANEY, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal1under35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-008911 Application 13/718, 134 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants describe the present invention as relating to a process of additive manufacturing to form a plated core that has hollows. Appeal Br. 2. Metal powder could be deposited in the hollow to make, for example, an integrally bladed rotor for a gas turbine engine. Spec. i-fi-13, 8. On February 24, 2014, after the December 23, 2013, Final Action, Appellants amended claim 1 so that it has the same limitations of prior claim 12 and cancelled all other claims. Thus, claim 1, reproduced below, is the only claim on appeal: 1. A method of forming a complex shaped part including the steps of: (a) forming a polymer core by an additive manufacturing process; (b) plating a metal about surfaces of said polymer core; ( c) removing said polymer core leaving hollows within a plating core; ( d) depositing metal powder within said hollows; and ( e) said additive manufacturing process includes one of selective lithography analysis, selective laser sintering, fusion deposition of material or laminated object manufacturing. Appeal Br. 4 (Appendix of Claims). REFERENCES The Examiner relied upon the prior art below when rejecting claim 1 on appeal: Boyle et al. (hereinafter "Boyle") Loersch et al. (hereinafter "Loersch") Schneider Roby us 3,848,654 Nov. 19, 1974 us 4,023,966 May 17, 1977 US 5,277,241 Jan. 11, 1994 US 2010/0006252 Al Jan. 14, 2010 2 Appeal2014-008911 Application 13/718, 134 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Loersch and Schneider. Ans. 2. Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Loersch and Boyle. Ans. 3. Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Loersch and Roby. Ans. 5. ANALYSIS For each of the three rejections, the Examiner applies Loersch as a primary references and finds it teaches all elements of claim 1 except for use of additive manufacturing to form Loersch's core. Final Act. 3, 5, 8. The Examiner also explains why a person of skill in the art would have sound reason to employ additive manufacturing processes taught by Schneider, Boyle, or Roby to form Loersch's core. Id. at 3--4, 6, 9. Appellants do not dispute these findings of fact, and we agree with the Examiner's findings in this regard. Appellants argue that Roby and Schneider form an outer shell and not a core. Appeal Br. 2. Appellants do not dispute, however, that Loersch teaches forming a core or that a person of skill in the art would have had reason to incorporate the Roby or Schneider process into the Loersch process in order to form Loresch's core. Final Act. 3--4, 9. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is 3 Appeal2014-008911 Application 13/718, 134 based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, this argument does not identify reversible error. Appellants also argue that the Boyle reference discloses no additive manufacturing technique. Appeal Br. 2. The Examiner, however, explains why Boyle's process is an example of laminated object manufacturing-a recited example of an additive manufacturing technique. Final Act. 5---6. Appellants present no argument rebutting the Examiner's findings regarding Boyle. Thus, we again discern no reversible error. In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner's position in the Answer is an improper new rejection. Reply Br. 1. We do not reach the issue of whether or not the Examiner's position is an undesignated new rejection because this issue may only be raised by petition to the Director: Any request to seek review of the primary examiner's failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer must be by way of a petition to the Director under [3 7 C.F .R. § 1.181] of this title filed within two months from the entry of the examiner's answer and before the filing of any reply brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a). Moreover, resolution of this issue has no effect here because, as explained above, the Appeal Brief identifies no reversible error. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejections. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue ... the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.") 4 Appeal2014-008911 Application 13/718, 134 DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm each of the Examiner's three rejections of claim 1. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation