James W. Comb et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 19, 2020

13790382 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2020)

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.
13/790,382 03/08/2013 James W. Comb 337.0018USI1 1032
57557 7590 02/19/2020
PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C.
SUITE 900
121 SOUTH 8TH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2841
EXAMINER
TOLIN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2020 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):
docketing@pdsdlaw.com
kds@pdsdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES W. COMB, STEVEN A. CHILLSCYNZ,
WILLIAM J. HANSON, J. RANDOLPH SANDERS, and
MICHAEL W. BACUS
____________

Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382
Technology Center 1700
____________

BEFORE BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 13, 21, 30, and 31.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Evolve Additive
Solutions, Inc. Appeal Br. 1–2.
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

2
The invention relates generally to additive manufacturing systems and
processes for building 3D parts and support structures using an imaging
process, such as electrophotography. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter claimed and is reproduced below:
1. An additive manufacturing system for printing a
three-dimensional thermoplastic part, the additive
manufacturing system comprising:

an imaging engine configured to develop an electric
charge on a thermoplastic-based powder, form latent images on
a surface and attract the thermoplastic-based powder to the
surface ace to form layers of the thermoplastic-based powder;

at least three rollers, wherein each roller is positioned in a
fixed position and rotatable about an axis of rotation, wherein at
least a first roller comprises a nip roller wherein the fixed
position of the nip roller is proximate a build plane and wherein
the fixed positions of at least a second roller and a third roller of
the at least three rollers are located a distance from the build
plane;

a rotatable belt having a first surface and a second
surface, the rotatable belt configured to receive imaged layers
of a thermoplastic-based powder from the imaging engine on
the first surface, each imaged layer having a length from a
leading edge to a trailing edge, wherein the second surface of
the belt is configured to engage the at least three rollers and
wherein the at least three rollers define a path of travel of the
belt wherein the travel path of the belt proximate the build
plane follows a first distance between a transfer engaging
location at the nip roller and a transfer disengaging location at
the nip roller, and the travel path descends in a rotational
direction toward the nip roller and ascends in a rotational
direction away from the nip roller;

a build platform configured to move and receive the
imaged layers from the belt in a layer-by-layer manner to print
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

3
the three-dimensional part on the build platform;

a gantry configured to move the build platform in a
reciprocating pattern such that a top surface of the part being
formed on the build platform travels within the build plane and
out of the build plane, the movement being synchronized with
the rotational rate of the belt wherein the gantry is configured to
move the top surface of the part being formed in the build plane
a second distance from a first build plane location to a second
build plane location wherein the second distance is longer than
the first distance, wherein the first build plane location is
located a third distance in an upstream direction of the transfer
engaging location such that the part being formed on the build
platform is not in contact with the imaged layer or the belt at
the first build plane location, and the leading edge of the
imaged layer is configured to register with a front location of
the build platform at the nip roller as the top surface of the part
being formed moves in the build plane, and wherein the second
build plane location is located a distance from the transfer
disengaging location such that the trailing edge is configured to
disengage the belt as the top surface of the part being formed
moves in the build plane;

a first heater configured to pre-heat the imaged layers;
and

wherein the build platform is configured to cooperate
with the nip roller to register and transfuse the imaged layers
onto the moving build platform utilizing heat and pressure
between the nip roller and the moving build platform over a
selected time period as the top surface of the part moves in the
build plane.

Independent claim 10 is also directed to additive manufacturing
system for printing a three-dimensional thermoplastic part.
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

4
Appellant requests review of the following rejections2 from the
Examiner’s Final Action:
I. Claims 1, 4, 7, and 21 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamada (JP 10-207194 A, published August
7, 1998, and relying on USPTO Translation No. 113032 dated August
2016), Kritchman (US 2009/0304952 A1, published December 10, 2009),
either Wimpenny (WO 2008/096105 Al, published August 14, 2008) or
Kumar (US 6,066,285, issued May 23, 2000), and, optionally, Koseko (JP
08-281808 A, published, October 29, 1996, and relying on USPTO
Translation No. 113034 dated August 2016).

II. Claims 2, 10, 12, 13, 30, and 31 rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamada, Kritchman, either
Wimpenny or Kumar, and, optionally, Koseko, and further in view of
Hickerson (US 7,261,542 B2, issued August 28, 2007).

III. Claims 6 and 9 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamada, Kritchman, either Wimpenny or Kumar, and,
optionally, Koseko, and further in view of Nishida (JP 2002-347129 A,
published December 4, 2002, and relying on USPTO Translation No.
113033 dated August 2016).

IV. Claim 8 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamada, Kritchman, Nishida, either Wimpenny or
Kumar, and, optionally, Koseko, and further in view of DuPont-Kapton
(http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/assets/products-and-
services/membranes-films/assets/DEC-Kapton-summary-of-properties.pdf
(pdf document undated and made of record on June 10, 2015)) and DuPont-
Teflon (http://www.rjchase.com/ptfe_handbook.pdf (pdf document dated
July 1996 and made of record on June 10, 2015)).

For Rejection I, Appellant does not argue any claim separately from
the other. See generally Appeal Br. Appellant also does not present further

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs. Ans. 13–14.
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

5
arguments for claims that have been rejected separately using additional
references. See id. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the
subject matter on appeal and decide the appeal as to all claims based on the
arguments made by Appellant in support of the patentability of claim 1.

OPINION

Claim 1
After review of the respective positions the Appellant and the
Examiner provide, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims
1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 13, 21, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons
the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a complete statement of
claim 1’s rejection. Final Act. 5–10.3
Briefly, the Examiner finds that Yamada discloses an additive
manufacturing system for printing a three-dimensional thermoplastic part
comprising a delivery system to deliver electrostatically formed
thermoplastic layers that have been subsequently preheated to a movable
build platform where the delivery system includes a rotatable belt that
rotates over fixed rollers. Final Act. 5; Yamada Figure 10. The Examiner
finds that Yamada teaches that the build platform is configured to interact
with the rotatable belt for sequential delivery of the thermoplastic layers

3 A discussion of Wimpenny and Kumar is unnecessary for disposition of
this appeal. The Examiner cites to Wimpenny and Kumar as additional
teachings that it is known to use reciprocating platforms to build three-
dimensional parts. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

6
through a reciprocating pattern. Final Act. 5; Yamada Figure 10, ¶¶ 44, 80.
The Examiner finds that Yamada does not teach the specifically claimed
delivery system comprising a rotatable belt rotating over at least three fixed
rollers where one of the rollers comprises a nip roller proximate to a build
plane to apply the thermoplastic layers in forming a three-dimensional part
on a movable/reciprocating build platform. Final Act. 6. The Examiner
finds that Kritchman teaches an alternate rotatable belt arrangement for
forming a three-dimensional part by sequentially transferring layers from a
belt to a reciprocating platform where the alternate rotatable belt
arrangement comprises a nip roller placed proximate to a build plane of the
reciprocating platform as claimed. Final Act. 7; Kritchman Figure 2G. The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Yamada’s belt delivery system by substituting
Yamada’s thermoplastic layer delivery system with Kritchman’s nip roller
configuration because Kritchman’s configuration is a known alternative
arrangement to transfer layers sequentially to build a three-dimensional part.
Final Act. 7.
The Examiner additionally finds that Koseko, cited as an optional
reference, teaches that it is known in the art to use either a heated plate or a
heated nip roller to transfer layers to the part. Final Act. 9; Ans. 14; Koseko
Figures 2–3.
Appellant argues that Yamada’s embodiment in Figure 10 uses an
intermediate transfer body 18 that is flat at the transfer area to evenly apply
pressure across the entire electrifiable powder sheet as stage 7 moves with it.
Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, Yamada emphasizes the importance
of full contact between the sheet-like electrifiable powder and the stage 7.
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

7
Appeal Br. 10; Yamada ¶¶ 44, 80. Appellant also argues that Yamada’s
layer transfer technique results in transfer defects (pores at the interface of
the layers) that are not present in the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 10. In
addition, Appellant contends that combining the teachings of Yamada and
Kritchman would change the principle of operation of Yamada’s invention
because such a combination would ignore Yamada’s teachings of
simultaneous contact of the entire electrified powder sheet with the three-
dimensional object 8/stage 7 and the instantaneous release of the entire
transferred electrified powder sheet from the intermediate transfer body 18.
Id. at 11. In particular, Appellant contends that expanding the movement of
the gantry and build platform beyond Yamada’s two bottom rollers wholly
ignores Yamada’s explicit disclosure that the movement of the gantry is
limited to the length of the heater. Id. at 14. Thus, Appellant contends that
Yamada teaches away from the claimed belt path having a transfer engaging
location and a transfer disengaging location at a nip roller where only a
small area of the belt pressure on the imaged layer and the three-dimensional
part at any time. Id. at 9–10.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner
presents. Ans. 14.
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that the combined teachings
of the cited art would change Yamada’s principle of operation. Yamada
suggests its principle of operation is to ensure that the electrified powder
sheet that contacts the stage or the previously deposited layer be heated
adequately at the time of its application. Yamada Figures 2, 3, 10. Both
Kritchman and Koseko teach the use of nip rollers to apply a layer to a stage
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

8
or previously deposited layer as well as to maintain the layer to be applied at
the appropriate temperature over the area of contact between the nip roller
and the stage. Kritchman Figure 2G, ¶ 64; Koseko Figure 3; ¶ 18.
Therefore, Kritchman and Koseko, like Yamada, operate under the principle
of applying heat to the portion of a layer that contacts the stage or previously
deposited layer to ensure bonding in forming a three-dimensional part.
Appellant’s arguments do not address adequately the rejection the
Examiner presents. Specifically, Appellant does not address the fact that
Kritchman and Koseko disclose a layer delivery system that, like the
claimed invention, relies on a nip roller that applies layers sequentially to
form a three-dimensional object. Kritchman Figure 2G; Koseko Figure 3.
That is, similarly to Yamada, the combined teachings of Kritchman and
Koseko apply heat and pressure to the contact area where a subsequent layer
contacts the previously applied area. In view of this, Appellant has not
explained adequately why the difference in the contract areas necessarily
results in the combined teachings of the cited art changing Yamada’s
principle of operation. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425–26 (CCPA 1981) (citations
omitted) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Further, as the Examiner notes (Ans. 15), Appellant does not explain why
Kritchman’s nip roller configuration would not be expected by one skilled in
the art to transfer layers to a three-dimensional part without causing transfer
defects allegedly caused by Yamada’s process.
Appellant’s argument that Koseko does not disclose the claimed nip
roller positioned in a fixed position and rotatable about an axis of rotation
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

9
(Reply Br. 6) is also unpersuasive because it does not take into account
Kritchman’s disclosure of such a roller. Further, the Examiner relies on
Koseko only to teach that it is known in the art to use either a heated plate or
a heated nip roller to transfer layers to a part. Final Act. 9; Ans. 14; Koseko
Figures 2–3.
Appellant argues that, absent impermissible hindsight, there is no
objective reason to combine the cited teachings because Yamada and
Kritchman are non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 7–8. According
to Appellant, Yamada is directed to a system and method that uses
electrifiable powders while Kritchman teaches a system and method for
forming objects from wax, which is a completely different material requiring
different system components and method parameters. Id. Appellant asserts
that one of skill in the art would not have turned to Kritchman’s teachings to
modify the Yamada’s teachings because there would be no reasonable
expectation success in view of the many differences in materials and process
requirements. Id. at 11–13.
Appellant’s arguments lack persuasive merit. The Federal Circuit has
explained that
[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous
prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field
of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed
and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of
the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still
is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved.

In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock
Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The Supreme Court’s decision
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

10
in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. . . . directs us to construe the scope
of analogous art broadly.”).
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an additive manufacturing
system for printing a three-dimensional thermoplastic part. Appellant does
not dispute that Yamada is directed to this field of endeavor. See generally
Appeal Br.; see also Yamada ¶ 13. Although Appellant contends that
Kritchman is limited to three-dimensional objects made of wax, we agree
with the Examiner that Kritchman’s disclosure is broader. Ans. 16. As the
Examiner explains (id.), Kritchman discloses that the building or printing
materials can include materials such as plastics and modeling material.
Kritchman ¶ 40. One skilled in the art would infer from this disclosure that
Kritchman encompasses making three-dimensional objects from
thermoplastics. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(holding that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as
well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
been expected to draw therefrom). Thus, like the claimed invention and
Yamada, Kritchman is also directed to an additive manufacturing system for
printing a three-dimensional thermoplastic part. Therefore, Yamada and
Kritchman are analogous art because they are within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor.
Appellant’s argument is also unpersuasive because the Examiner is
not replacing Yamada’s printing mechanism with Kritchman’s wax printing
mechanism. The Examiner is modifying Yamada by adapting Kritchman’s
layer delivery system into Yamada’s invention. That is, the argument does
not address the rejection the Examiner presents. Appellant has not
adequately explained why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

11
creativity, would not have been capable of adapting Kritchman’s layer
delivery system into Yamada’s invention so that it transfers layers made of
thermoplastic material to a stage to form a three-dimensional part given
Kritchman’s disclosure that building or printing materials other than wax
can be used. See 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 also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, 6–10, 12, 13, 21, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons
the Examiner presents and we provide above.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7, 21 103(a) Yamada,
Kritchman,
Wimpenny, Kumar,
Koseko
1, 4, 7, 21
2, 10, 12, 13,
30, 31
103(a) Yamada,
Kritchman,
Wimpenny, Kumar,
Koseko, Hickerson 
2, 10, 12,
13, 30, 31

6, 9 103(a) Yamada,
Kritchman,
Wimpenny, Kumar,
Koseko, Nishida
6, 9
8 103(a) Yamada,
Kritchman, Nishida,
Wimpenny, Kumar,
8
Appeal 2019-002132
Application 13/790,382

12
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Koseko, DuPont-
Kapton, DuPont-
Teflon
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 6–
10, 12, 13,
21, 30, 31

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1) (2017).

AFFIRMED