Ex Parte Pfister et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2017

12387651 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2017)

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.
12/387,651 05/04/2009 Andreas Pfister 1415211.502US2 9419
21874 7590
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
LE, HOA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2017 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):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS PFISTER and MANDY GERSCH1
Appeal 2016-002790
Application 12/387,651
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 38—43 and 45—52. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An
oral hearing was held on September 28, 2017.3
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as EOS GmbH Electro Optical
Systems, the assignee of the instant application. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In our Decision we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed November 29,
2011, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 14, 2014, the
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed June 15, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed November 18, 2015, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
January 15, 2016.
3 A written transcript of the oral hearing will be entered into the record when
the transcript is made available.
Appeal 2016-002790
Application 12/387,651
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to a recycled polyamide powder
for use in a method for layer-wise manufacturing a three-dimensional object.
Spec. 1. Claim 38, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
38. A recycled polyamide powder for use in a method of
manufacturing a three-dimensional object by selectively
solidifying layers of the recycled polyamide powder at the
locations corresponding to the cross-section of the object in the
respective layer by application of electromagnetic radiation,
wherein the recycled polyamide powder has already undergone
a manufacturing cycle and, prior to a further use in another
manufacturing cycle, the powder is treated subsequently with
water vapour and then the powder is dried, wherein after
treatment the powder has a molar weight that is at least 5% less
than before treatment.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App’x).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 3 8—43 and 45—52
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Monsheimer4 in combination
with Allen.5 Final Act. 2.
Appellants request reversal of the Examiner’s rejection. See generally
Appeal Br. Because our basis for reversal—i.e., the lack of a reason to
4 Monsheimer et al., US 2004/0102539 Al, published May 27, 2004
(“Monsheimer”).
5 Allen et al., US 2004/0138344 Al, published July 15, 2004 (“Allen”).
2
Appeal 2016-002790
Application 12/387,651
combine the teachings of Monsheimer and Allen, is common to all claims,
we limit our discussion below to claim 38 to resolve the issues on appeal.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Monsheimer teaches a polyamide powder
having improved recycling properties and that no (or little) virgin powder is
needed when used in a laser sintering process. Final Act. 2. The Examiner
also finds that Allen teaches a process for treating polyamide powder useful
in laser sintering processes that include vapor treatment. Id. The Examiner
explains that according to Allen, the vapor treatment prior to use in a laser
sintering process improves deformation potential. Id. The Examiner also
finds that Allen teaches that it is customary to recycle laser sintering powder.
Id. at 3. The Examiner reasons that one skilled in the art would have had
reason to vapor treat (according to Allen) the recycled polyamide powder (of
Monsheimer) in order to improve the objects made by the polyamide
powder. Id. The Examiner further finds that it would have been expected
for the resulting recycled polyamide powder to have the molecular weight as
claimed because Allen teaches a similar process (vapor treatment at ± 10-C
from the Tc of the polyamide and from 5—100 hours (Allen |72) and a
similar/same polyamide powder (polyamide 12 and 11, see also Allen || 19,
73 and Monsheimer || 7, 62).
Appellants argue that there exists no reason to apply the vapor steam
treatment of Allen to the polyamide of Monsheimer. Reply Br. 12. In
particular, Appellants assert that because “the use of regulated PA powder
[of Monsheimer] does not lead to a post-condensation problem[,] ... a water
3
Appeal 2016-002790
Application 12/387,651
steam treatment of Allen would not be required and there would be no
reason for one skilled in the art to apply such treatment.” Id. at 13.
We agree with Appellants’ argument in this regard. The Examiner
reasons that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the
teachings of Monsheimer and Allen to reach Appellants’ invention “in order
to improve the objects made by the polyamide powder.” Final Act. 3.
However, as Appellants note, Monsheimer already achieves the result of
improved object properties. For example, Monsheimer explains that
recycled conventional powders typically exhibit poor mechanical properties
and an increased number of defects, but, use of a regulated polyamide of
Monsheimer avoids these problems. Monsheimer H 13—21. Therefore,
there is no reason identified in the record to further treat the polyamide of
Monsheimer with the vapor treatment process of Allen. See e.g., Kinetic
Concepts, Inc., v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (“[Bjoth of these references independently accomplish similar
functions, namely, draining fluids . . . [and] a person having ordinary skill in
the art, who was merely seeking to create a better device to drain fluids from
a wound, would have no reason to combine the features of both devices into
a single device.”). Thus, on this record, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection.
CONCFUSION
Appellants have identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 38-43 and 45—52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Monsheimer and Allen.
4
Appeal 2016-002790
Application 12/387,651
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 38-43 and
45—52 is reversed.
REVERSED
5