Ex Parte Pialot et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 10, 2019

14418644 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/418,644 01/30/2015 Frederic Pialot
35161 7590 05/14/2019
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 Eye St., NW
Suite 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
338180-01164 2933
EXAMINER
WANG, NICHOLAS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2019 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):
dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERIC PIALOT, MIGUEL TORRES-CATELLANO,
GILLES WALRAND, and BENOIT POURCHER
Appeal2018-007868
Application 14/418,644
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and GRACE
KARAFFA OBERMANN., Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 (a) as being unpatentable over at least the basic combination of Turck
et al. (US 6,824,714 Bl, iss. Nov. 30, 2004) with Hagiwara
1 Appellant is the Applicants, Compagnie General Des Establissements
Michelin and Michelin Recherche et Technique, S.A., which are also stated
to be the real parties in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2018-007868
Application 14/418,644
(US 2007/0026099 Al pub. Feb 1, 2007)2, and of claim I and 6 over
Hoffman et al. (US 6,554,600 Bl, iss. Apr. 29, 2003) with Hagiwara. 3
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter ( emphasis added
to highlight a key disputed limitation):
1. A machine for the additive manufacture of a three dimensional
object by sintering or melting powder using a beam of energy acting
on a layer of powder comprising:
a working zone, wherein the working zone is defined in an
upper part of a build sleeve in which the three-dimensional object is
manufactured, wherein the build sleeve has a height which defines a
maximum height for the three-dimensional object to be manufactured
such that the entire three-dimensional object remains in the build
sleeve during manufacturing;
a chassis, in which the build sleeve is fixedly mounted;
a build plate which supports the three-dimensional object, and
which slides inside the build sleeve when driven in vertical
translation;
a head of an actuating cylinder placed along the central axis of
the build sleeve, and which drives the build plate in vertical
translation;
wherein the build plate is positioned inside a transport
container which is made as a separate piece from the sleeve and
which is arranged removably below a lower edge of the build sleeve
and above the actuating cylinder;
2 The Examiner applied additional prior art to dependent claims 4, 8, and 12
(Final Action 8-10). A discussion of these rejections is not necessary for
the disposition of this appeal.
3 Appellant states the rejection based on Hoffman with Hagiwara is improper
for reasons very similar to the reasons the Turck/Hagiwara combination is
improper (Appeal Br. 17). The Examiner agrees Hoffman discloses a very
similar additive manufacturing device to Turck such that similar arguments
are applicable to both rejections (Ans. 17).
2
Appeal2018-007868
Application 14/418,644
a raising device that is configured to move the transport
container vertically upwardly into contact with the build sleeve; and
wherein the transport container is open at its top and at its
bottom so that, when the actuating cylinder is actuated, the head
transfers the plate from the transport container to the build sleeve,
which forms a build envelope around the build plate, and so that the
head of the actuating cylinder are retractable out of the bottom of the
transport container such that the transport container with the build
plate and the three-dimensional object can be transported away from
the build sleeve and away from the actuating cylinder.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
"[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with
approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellant's position that the Examiner has not met the burden in this case
for substantially the reasons set forth by Appellant in the Briefs.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's § 103 rejections of all the claims on
appeal.
We add the following primarily for emphasis:
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
3
Appeal2018-007868
Application 14/418,644
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the claims in
patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.); Cf Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
("[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction
analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
of a disputed term."') (Internal citation omitted).
The Examiner relies on the lower edge of the lip/flange of Hagawari' s
reducing device (in either the Turck/Hagiwara or Hoffman/Hagiwara
rejection) to teach or suggest that the transport container is "arranged
removably below a lower edge of the build sleeve" as recited in claim 1
(e.g., Ans. 15). We agree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "a transport container ... which is arranged removably
below a lower edge of the build sleeve" as recited in claim 1 and consistent
with the Specification does not encompass the Turck/Hagiwara combination
as depicted in Fig. 15.4 As pointed out by Appellant, the lowermost part of
the upper lip/flange is not a lower edge of the build sleeve, when the claim is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., Appeal Br. 15, 16; Reply
Br. 3-7, 9; see also Appeal Br. 17 (Appellant further states the rejection
based on Hoffman with Hagiwara is improper for reasons very similar to the
reasons the Turch/Hagiwara combination is improper); Ans. 17 (Examiner
4 Figure 15 is Appellant's depiction of the combination Turck/Hagiwara
machine (Appeal Br. 15). The Examiner agrees that this configuration is
relied upon for the rejection of claim 1 (Ans. 14) and relies upon this Figure
15 in the Answer (Ans. 15).
4
Appeal2018-007868
Application 14/418,644
agrees Hoffman discloses a very similar additive manufacturing device to
Turck).
We agree with Appellant that, in light of their Specification
description of their invention which only describes and depicts an entire
transport container arranged below an entire build sleeve, "a lower edge of
the build sleeve" of the Turck/Hagiwara machine would be the lowest edge
of the reducing device as depicted on page 7 of the Reply Brief. Thus, the
Examiner's reliance on the lower edge of the lip/flange of Hagawari's
reducing device (in either the Turck/Hagiwara or Hoffman/Hagiwara
rejection) to teach or suggest that the transport container is "arranged
removably below a lower edge of the build sleeve" as recited in claim 1 is
unfounded.
The Examiner does not proffer sufficient reasoning or rely upon any
other reference to cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, we reverse the§ 103 rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-14
which all rely upon the Examiner's flawed interpretation of the claim
language.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's§ 103 rejections of all the claims on appeal are
reversed.
REVERSED
5