Board of Regents, The University of Texas System

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2020

14575484 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 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.
14/575,484 12/18/2014 Scott Fish 10046-063US1 1078
96039 7590 11/17/2020
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
KHARE, ATUL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2020 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@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT FISH, JOSEPH BEAMAN, ADAM BRYANT, DAVID
LEIGH, STEVEN KUBIAK, and JOHN CAMERON BOOTH,

Appeal 2019-005767
Application 14/575,484
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 8–15, 19, and 35–38. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Dec. 18, 2014
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated July 31, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed Jan. 30, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
dated May 20, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 19, 2019
(“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Board of Regents, The University of
Texas System, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2019-005767
Application 14/575,484

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to an additive manufacturing system in which
three-dimensional objects are produced on a layer-by-layer basis from a
powder, such as plastic, metal, polymer, ceramic, composite materials,
dispensed on a target or build surface which is sintered with a directed
energy beam, typically a laser. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (disputed limitations are
italicized).
1. An apparatus for producing a part from a powder using
a powder sintering process, the apparatus comprising:
a build chamber including one or more walls, wherein the
build chamber encloses a build cylinder, and a build surface;
a build piston configured to support the powder and the
part, wherein the build piston is arranged at least partially
within the build cylinder;
a plurality of heat sources, wherein at least one of the
plurality of heat sources is embedded in at least one of the
walls of the build chamber;
an energy source configured to produce and direct an
energy beam to the build surface, wherein the energy source is
arranged outside of the build chamber; and
a controller configured to control the plurality of heat
sources, wherein the controller controls the plurality of heat
sources to maintain an approximately uniform temperature
distribution within the build chamber during the powder
sintering process.
Appeal Br. 31 (Claims Appendix).

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
Appeal 2019-005767
Application 14/575,484

3
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejections.
The Examiner’s rejections rely on the following prior art references:
Name Reference Date
Benda US 5,530,221 B2 June 25, 1996
Mazumder US 6,580,959 B1 June 27, 2003
Wang US 6,621,039 B2 Sept. 16, 2003
Chung ’636 US 6,815,636 B2 Nov. 9, 2004
Chung US 7,521,652 B2 Apr. 21, 2009
Cox US 7,887,316 B2 Feb. 15, 2011
Baumann US 2011/0165340 A1 July 7, 2011

The Examiner maintains the following rejections:3
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1, 4, 8–15, 19, 35–38 112(b) Indefiniteness
9, 13, 35 112(d) Failing to further limit claim
1, 4, 8–15, 19, 35–38 Obviousness double patenting USSN 15/587,308 claims 16–28
1, 4, 8–10, 13, 35–38 103 Chung ’636, Baumann
4, 8–10, 13, 35, 37, 38 103 Chung ’636, Baumann, Chung
11, 12 103 Chung ’636, Baumann, Mazumder, Chung
14 103 Chung ’636, Baumann, Benda
15 103 Chung ’636, Baumann, Cox

3 The Examiner withdrew the written description rejections of claims 1, 4,
8–15, 19, and 35–38. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-005767
Application 14/575,484

4
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
19 103 Chung ’636, Baumann, Wang

Appellant does not challenge the double patenting rejection or the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and (d). Appeal Br. 21–23. Therefore,
we summarily affirm those rejections.
As to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellant argues claims 1,
4, 8–10, 13, 35–38 as a group and asserts that the additional references cited
in the subsidiary rejections do not cure the argued deficiencies of Chung and
Baumann. Appeal Br. 23–30. Therefore, in view of the lack of separate
arguments directed to the rejected claim group and the subsidiary rejections
of dependent claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group and claims 4, 8–15, 19, and 35–38 stand or fall
with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We address claim 1
below.
Appellant contends Chung teaches only heating the powder bed rather
than a plurality of heat sources or an embedded heater as required by claim
1. Appeal Br. 24. According to Appellant, Chung’s heated powder bed does
not “maintain an approximately uniform temperature distribution within the
build chamber during the powder sintering process” as recited in claim 1. Id.
Appellant argues that Baumann does not cure Chung’s deficiencies because
Baumann’s resistance heaters 16 are embedded in horizontal plate 12 rather
than in the walls of a build chamber. Id. According to Appellant, Baumann’s
multiple heat sources (heating devices 13 and heat radiators 81) only heat
plate 12 and the space above the plate, rather than “maintain a uniform
temperature distribution within the build chamber” as recited in claim 1. Id.
Appeal 2019-005767
Application 14/575,484

5
at 25. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination of Chung and
Baumann is based on impermissible hindsight from Appellant’s
Specification’s teaching to embed a heat source “in one of the walls of the
build chamber.” Id. at 26–27.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art combination of Chung and
Baumann for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
The preponderance of the evidence cited in this Appeal record
supports the Examiner’s finding that both Chung and Baumann teach the
importance of uniform temperature distribution within a build chamber. Ans.
9–10; Chung 2:60–63; Baumann ¶ 3, 6, 21. The record also supports the
Examiner’s finding that both Chung and Baumann disclose the use of
multiple heaters to promote the goal of uniform temperature distribution.
Ans. 9–10; Chung 2:54–57, 7:42–46; Baumann ¶¶ 6, 22, 32, 41, Figs. 1–4
items 13, 14, 15, 16, 81. Based on these teachings, the Examiner’s
determination (Final Act. 10–11) that it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to embed in a wall the multiple heaters taught
by Chung and Baumann for the purpose of providing uniform temperature
distribution in a build chamber is supported by rational underpinnings,
namely, Baumann’s teaching that heat sources 16 may be embedded.
Appellant’s contention that the term “walls of the build chamber” recited in
claim 1 limits the location of the embedded heaters in a build apparatus is
not persuasive because Appellant does not direct us to any support in the
Specification limiting the definition of that claim term. As the Examiner
finds, the term “wall” constitutes “something that acts as a barrier.” Ans. 11.
Appeal 2019-005767
Application 14/575,484

6
Thus, Baumann’s description of a “plate” fairly constitutes a “wall” as that
term is used in claim 1 as the Examiner finds. Ans. 12.
The preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record therefore
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious in view of Chung’s apparatus as modified by Baumann’s
teaching to embed heaters in a build apparatus. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the above
reasons and those provided by the Examiner.
Because we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above, we likewise
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 8–15, 19, and 35–38 for the
same reasons.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons and those the Examiner provides, we affirm the
double patenting and § 112 rejections not challenged by Appellant and we
uphold the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 8–15, 19, and 35–38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-005767
Application 14/575,484

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 8–15,
19, 35–38 112(b) Indefiniteness
1, 4, 8–15,
19, 35–38
9, 13, 35 112(d) Failing to further limit claim 9, 13, 35
1, 4, 8–15,
19, 35–38
Obviousness
double patenting
USSN 15/587,308
claims 16–28
1, 4, 8–15,
19, 35–38
1, 4, 8–10,
13, 35–38 103
Chung ’636,
Baumann
1, 4, 8–10,
13, 35–38
4, 8–10, 13,
35, 37, 38 103
Chung ’636,
Baumann, Chung
4, 8–10, 13,
35, 37, 38
11, 12 103
Chung ’636,
Baumann,
Mazumder, Chung
11, 12
14 103 Chung ’636, Baumann, Benda 14
15 103 Chung ’636, Baumann, Cox 15
19 103 Chung ’636, Baumann, Wang 19
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 8–15,
19, 35–38

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED