Ex Parte Keshavmurthy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 18, 2012

10623330 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

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.
10/623,330 07/18/2003 Shyam Keshavmurthy DWH-11602/29 3284
25006 7590 01/19/2012
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021
EXAMINER
BARNES-BULLOCK, CRYSTAL JOY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/19/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHYAM KESHAVMURTHY,
JUDY ANN CARMEIN and DAWN WHITE
____________

Appeal 2009-012163
Application 10/623,330
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012163
Application 10/623,330

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 15, 17-19 and 21-22.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to software for rapid prototyping and tooling,
and to apparatus and methods for facilitating combined additive and
subtractive rapid prototyping processes. Spec. 1, ll. 6-8.
Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the issue on appeal:
1. An automated manufacturing method, comprising the
steps of:
receiving a description of an object to be fabricated
having a desired geometry;
identifying regions in which at least one automated
material addition process and at least one automated material
subtraction process should occur to fabricate the object in
accordance with the description;
generating toolpaths associated with the material addition
and subtraction processes; and
fabricating the object in accordance with the toolpaths.

9. The method of claim 1, further including the step of
blending the regions to eliminate seams that would be generated
due to the subtractive process used.

Claims 1-4, 7, 17, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by deAngelis (US 5,398,193).

1
Claims 5, 6, 8, 12-14 and 16 have been cancelled. The Examiner objected
to claim 20 as dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicated that claim
20 includes allowable subject matter.
Appeal 2009-012163
Application 10/623,330

3
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 15, 18 and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rebello (US 6,856,842 B2).
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by White (US 6,463,349 B2).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Rebello describes “blending the
regions to eliminate seams that would be generated due to the subtractive
process used,” as recited in dependent claim 9?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action (“FOA”). Appellants do not present arguments addressing the
rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 17, 21 and 22 as anticipated by deAngelis; claims
1-4, 10, 11, 15, 18 and 19 as anticipated by Rebello; and claims 1-4 and 7 as
anticipated by White. Br. 2-3. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of
claims 1-4, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17-19, 21 and 22 pro forma. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants’ arguments focus on dependent claim 9 which recites:
“blending the regions to eliminate seams that would be generated due to the
subtractive process used.” The Examiner finds that Rebello describes
identifying regions such as holes, lines, curves, chamfers and radii, in which
at least one material addition process and at least one material subtraction
process (i.e., removal, cutting, drilling, etc.) should occur to fabricate an
object, as recited in independent claim 1. Ans. 7 (citing Rebello col. 3, ll. 4-
9); Ans. 12 (citing Rebello col. 3, ll. 40-45). The Examiner explains that it is
inherent that seams, edges or discontinuities would be generated due to a
Appeal 2009-012163
Application 10/623,330

4
subtractive process involving material removal such as machining with
cutters, lasers and drills. Ans. 13. The Examiner further finds that Rebello’s
description of imposing continuity or other matching conditions for
adjoining tooling features meets the claimed “blending the regions to
eliminate seams”. Ans. 8, 13 (citing col. 3, ll. 34-37).
Appellants argue that Rebello does not describe elimination of seams,
or that seams would be generated due to a subtractive process involving
material removal. Br. 2-3. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments
since Appellants do not meaningfully or persuasively explain why seams,
edges or discontinuities would not be inherently generated due to the
subtractive process involving material removal such as machining with
cutters, lasers and drills, as found by the Examiner. Appellants also do not
sufficiently explain why Rebello’s description of imposing continuity or
other matching conditions for adjoining tooling features does not meet the
limitation of blending the regions to eliminate seams created during the
subtractive processes for the adjoining tooling features.
For all these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 as anticipated
by Rebello. Since we have determined that claim 9 is unpatentable on the
basis of Rebello, we need not and will not consider the rejection of claim 9
based on White.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 17, 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by deAngelis.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-4, 9-11, 15, 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rebello.
Appeal 2009-012163
Application 10/623,330

5
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by White.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ELD