United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2020

2019005564 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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.
14/611,580 02/02/2015 Adam Z. Doherty 79671US01;
67097-3154PUS1
1370
54549 7590 10/21/2020
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LUK, VANESSA TIBAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2020 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM Z. DOHERTY, CHRISTOPHER F. O'NEILL, and
JOHN P. RIZZO, JR.
Appeal 2019-005564
Application 14/611,580
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chou (US 2014/0335313 A1, published November 13,

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed February 2, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated July 31, 2018
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed January 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer dated May 16, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed July
16, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corp. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005564
Application 14/611,580

2
2014) in view of Mottin (US 2013/0112366 A1, published May 9, 2013),
and over Chung (US 7,521,652 B2, issued April 21, 2009) in view of
Mottin.3, 4
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates “to a method and system for providing non-
contacting thermal support to a component during an additive manufacturing
process.” Spec. ¶ 1. “Additive manufacturing systems create three
dimensional structures, or components, by applying sequential layers of a
material to a base surface.” Id. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, “certain
structures . . . require a structural support to prevent the structure being
created from shifting or falling during assembly.” Id. In addition, “the
assembly process can have high temperatures that require a thermal pathway
between the structure being created and a corresponding heat sink.” Id.
The Specification discloses that, as of the application filing date, the
ordinary artisan was familiar with using honeycomb structural and thermal
supports integral to the structure being assembled. Spec. ¶ 3. A drawback of
these supports is that they must be decoupled from the assembled
structure using milling or another material removal process. Id. When the
structure includes downward-facing surfaces, these removal techniques can
be difficult and expensive, or even inadequate to remove the integral
support. Id. ¶ 32.

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See
Advisory Action dated November 2, 2018.
4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-005564
Application 14/611,580

3
The invention is said to overcome the problems associated with
integral supports by utilizing a “non-contacting thermal support,” i.e., “a
thermal support structure which maintains thermal conductivity with a
component being assembled without a physical contact with, or a physical
connection to, the component.” Spec. ¶ 35. The non-contacting thermal
support surrounds the component and includes a three dimensional negative
image of the component. Id. ¶ 36. The non-contacting thermal support is
separated from the component in each dimension by a gap having a “width
of about three to five average sized particles of the laser sintering powder.”
Id. According to the Specification, “due to the restricted gap size, there [are]
a relatively small number of contact resistances arising across the gap . . . ,
and the thermal resistance of the gap is such that effective heat transfer can
occur across the gap.” Id. ¶ 38. “By making the gap 50 slightly larger than
the average particle size, particles in the laser sintering powder are allowed
to flow freely during the manufacturing process.” Id. ¶ 37. Moreover,
“[i]ncluding a gap of the described size range provides sufficient room for
the component . . . to be removed from the thermal support after completion
of the assembly process.” Id.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An additive manufacturing process comprising:
simultaneously constructing a component and a non-
contacting thermal support for said component by constructing
at least one downward facing surface of said component and at
least one upward facing surface of said non-contacting thermal
support such that a gap is defined between the at least one
upward facing surface and the at least one downward facing
surface, and wherein said at least one downward facing surface
is opposite said at least one upward facing surface across said
Appeal 2019-005564
Application 14/611,580

4
gap, the downward facing surface having an angle of
approximately horizontal relative to gravity, wherein the non-
contacting thermal support includes a three dimensional
negative of the component, and wherein said gap is in the range
of about three to five times an average particle size of a powder
particle utilized in said additive manufacturing process; and
dissipating heat from said component through said non-
contacting thermal support to a heat sink.
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.).
OPINION
The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings that both
Chung and Chou disclose additive manufacturing processes as recited in
claim 1, except that the references do not specify that the distance (gap)
separating a component’s downward-facing surface and a non-contacting
thermal support’s upward-facing surface is “about three to five times an
average particle size of a powder particle utilized in [the] additive
manufacturing process” (claim 1). See Final Act. 5–9; see generally Appeal
Br. 3–5. Rather, the sole argument advanced by the Appellant is that the
Examiner reversibly erred in determining that modifying the Chung or Chou
methods based on Mottin’s disclosure would have resulted in constructing a
component and a non-contacting thermal support separated by the claimed
gap size. See generally Appeal Br. 3–5. The Appellant’s argument is
persuasive for the reasons discussed below.
Mottin discloses “a method of fabricating a metal part by selectively
melting a powder with the help of a laser beam [(direct metal laser
sintering)] or an electron beam [(electron beam melting)].” Mottin ¶ 1. The
method includes “building up layer by layer on a plate and simultaneously
Appeal 2019-005564
Application 14/611,580

5
with the part, at least one holder and support element for the part, the
element being spaced apart and distinct from the part and being separated
therefrom by a gap filled with non-melted or non-sintered powder.” Id. ¶ 14.
According to Mottin, the powder between the part and the holder limits
deformation and surface roughness of the part. Id. ¶ 17. Mottin discloses that
“the support is spaced apart from the part by a distance lying in the
range 50 micrometers (µm) to 500 µm.” Id. ¶ 20. The appropriate distance
between the support and the part “is determined using a chart, as a function
of selected parameters, such as the roughness of the part that is to be
obtained.” Id. ¶ 23.
Mottin Figure 5 shows an exemplary chart for a support and a part
separated by a gap filled with Inco 718 powder having a 40 μm to 50 μm
grain size. Id. ¶ 67. Mottin Figure 5 plots roughness of the part’s
downwardly-facing surface as a function of its distance (d) from the support
at three different angles (α)—10° (curve 27a), 20° (curve 27b), and 30°
(curve 27c)—of the surface relative to the vertical. Id. ¶¶ 66, 68. According
to Mottin, at distances (d) below a certain value (dmin), there is a risk of the
support sticking to the part, and at distances (d) above a certain value
(dmax), distance no longer has any influence on roughness Ra. Id. ¶¶ 71–72.
The Examiner found that Mottin discloses an example in which a gap
between the part and the support (“dmin is of the order of 80 µm and dmax
is of the order of 250 µm” (Mottin ¶ 73)) is two to five times the value of
particle size (“grain size lying in the range 40 µm to 50 µm” (id.)), which
overlaps the claimed “range of about three to five times an average particle
size of a powder particle” (claim 1). Final Act. 6. The Examiner determined
Appeal 2019-005564
Application 14/611,580

6
that the ordinary artisan would have modified Chou’s and Chung’s methods
by
select[ing] the appropriate particle size and gap size as a
function of the angle between the downwardly-facing surface
and the horizontal plane, such as the relationship disclosed in
Mottin, because doing so would allow for the manufacture of a
part having a surface roughness appropriate for the particular
tolerances permitted in the in-service use of the part.
Id.
The Appellant argues that Mottin’s paragraph 73 example is limited to
a single, specific particle material (Inco 718), a specific grain size (40 µm to
50 µm), and a specific angle of the part’s surface relative to the vertical
(45°). Appeal Br. 3. Citing Mottin’s statement that “[t]ests have shown that
the results obtained vary as a function of the value of the angle α or as a
function of the type of powder used (material, grain size)” (Mottin ¶ 75), the
Appellant argues that “one of skill in the art would have had no reason to
expect the range taught for a 45 degree angle to be applicable to [the
claimed] horizontal surface.” Appeal Br. 4. The Appellant also references
Mottin paragraph 76 in support of its arguments that “Mottin does not teach
a generic range or ratio associating the gap size to the grain size of the
additive manufacturing process,” and there is no support for the Examiner’s
finding that Mottin teaches that “[w]hen the type of powder used and the
angle at which it is applied is known, it is possible to determine distance ‘d’
(gap size) required.” Id. As argued by the Appellant, in paragraph 76, Mottin
explains that charts plotting roughness of a part’s downwardly-facing
surface as a function of its distance (d) from the support were derived from
empirical testing, not general equations. Appeal Br. 4–5; Mottin ¶ 76 (“The
charts have been drawn up by the Applicant by constructing test pieces
Appeal 2019-005564
Application 14/611,580

7
presenting a plurality of downwardly-inclined surfaces at angles that vary
from one surface to another. In addition, the test pieces were constructed
with different distances d between the supports and the corresponding
surfaces. This has made it possible to establish how roughness Ra varies as a
function of the angle α and of the distance d. Such charts have been drawn
up for several different powder materials . . . and for various grain sizes.”).
Responsive to the Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
have tested a range of angles, including from zero through 180
degrees, because the wider range would supply more
information, thereby enabling one of ordinary skill in the art to
determine the best angle for constructing a part of a desired
shape with minimal roughness.
Ans. 9. For the reasons argued by the Appellant (see Appeal Br. 3–5), this
assertion, even if true, does not support a finding that Chou’s or Chung’s
methods, if modified based on Mottin’s disclosure, would have resulted in
constructing a component and a non-contacting thermal support having a
gap between the support’s upward facing surface and the part’s downward
facing surface “in the range of about three to five times an average particle
size of a powder particle” when “the downward facing surface ha[s] an angle
of approximately horizontal relative to gravity” as recited in claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–4, 8, and 9.

Appeal 2019-005564
Application 14/611,580

8
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 9 103 Chou, Mottin 1–4, 8, 9
1–4, 8, 9 103 Chung, Mottin 1–4, 8, 9
Overall
Outcome:

1–4, 8, 9

REVERSED