Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2019

14594787 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/594,787 01/12/2015
10800 7590 02/25/2019
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Helmut Schneider
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.
2178-1293 1279
EXAMINER
GREENLUND, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2019 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HELMUT SCHNEIDER,
NIKOLAUS HAUTMANN, PETER RUECK,
ANDREAS BURGHARDT, HANNES WILLECK,
ANTONIUS GRESS and MARTIN SCHOEPF
(Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH)
Appeal 2018-005460
Application 14/594, 787
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
3 decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
4 unpatentable over Tozzi (US 2015/0017013 Al, publ. Jan. 15, 2015) and
5 Rebak (US 2012/0276308 Al, publ. Nov. 1, 2012); and claim 5 under
The Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH of Stuttgart, Germany,
the Applicant under 37 C.F.R § 1.43(a), as the real party in interest. (See
Appeal Brief, dated Jan. 8, 2018, at 2).
Appeal2018-005460
Application 14/594,787
1 § 103 as being unpatentable over Tozzi, Rebak and Clemen (US 9,370,789
2 B2, issued June 21, 2016). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
3 We AFFIRM.
4
5 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
6 The appealed claims are directed to fabricating high-speed turbine
7 wheels with shrouds as unitary structures by means of a generative or
8 additive manufacturing method. In such a method, each turbine wheel is
9 built up, layer-by-layer, from powdered metal heated by selective laser
10 melting or electron beam melting. (See generally Specification, dated Apr.
11 21, 2015 ("Spec."), at 4, 1. 11-5, 1. 23). Claim 1 is the sole independent
12 claim on appeal:
13 1. A method for generative production of a turbine wheel in
14 one piece via primary forming having a hub body, a plurality of
15 turbine blades integrally formed with the hub body, and a shroud
16 which encompasses the hub body, which is integrally formed
1 7 with the turbine blades, and which interconnects the respective
18 radial outer edges of the turbine blades, the method comprising:
19 utilizing a doctor blade in applying a layer of powdered
20 material having a predetermined layer thickness to a construction
21 platform;
22 selectively melting the layer of powdered material with
23 reference to a current layer form of the turbine wheel;
24 moving the construction platform by a predetermined
25 amount; and
26 repeating applying, selectively melting, and moving until
27 a last layer of the turbine wheel is formed.
2
Appeal2018-005460
Application 14/594,787
1 ISSUES
2 Claim 1 is representative, at least with respect to the rejection of
3 claims 1--4 and 6-10 over Tozzi and Rebak. The Appellants argue the
4 rejection of claim 5 over Tozzi, Rebak and Clemen solely on the basis that
5 the subject matter of independent claim 1, the parent of claim 5, would not
6 have been obvious from the teachings of Tozzi and Rebak; and Clemen fails
7 to remedy the deficiency. (See Appeal Brief, dated Jan. 8, 2018 ("App.
8 Br."), at 5 & 6).
9 This appeal turns on two issues:
10 First, does Rebak teach "utilizing a doctor blade in applying a layer of
11 powdered material having a predetermined layer thickness to a construction
12 platform?"
13 Second, would it have been obvious to modify the process described
14 by Tozzi to use a doctor blade to remove unwanted powder material from
15 each layer prior to selective melting and solidification of the layer? (See
16 Examiner's Answer, mailed Mar. 7, 2018 ("Ans."), at 5).
17
18 FINDINGS OF FACT
19 The record supports the following findings of fact ("FF") by a
20 preponderance of the evidence.
21 1. The Examiner correctly finds that Tozzi describes a method
22 including each step recited in claim 1 except utilizing a doctor blade in
23 applying a layer of powdered material having a predetermined layer
24 thickness to a construction platform. (See Final Act. 3 & 4). More
25 specifically, with reference to Figure 3, Tozzi describes a method in which:
3
Appeal2018-005460
Application 14/594,787
1 A first layer of powder material from [a] powder container 117
2 is distributed on [a] movable table 115 by moving the powder
3 material container 117 according to arrow fl 17 one or more
4 times along the movable table 115 which is placed at the height
5 of [a] target surface TS. Once the first layer of powder material
6 has been distributed, [an] electron-beam gun 101 is activated and
7 [an] electron beam EB is controlled by [a] deflection coil 107
8 such as to locally melt the powder material in a restricted portion
9 of the layer, corresponding to a cross-section of the product to be
10 manufactured. After melting, the powder material is allowed to
11 cool and solidify. Powder material outside the boundaries of the
12 cross-section of the product to be manufactured remains in the
13 powder form. Once the first layer has been processed as
14 described above, the movable table 115 is lowered and a
15 subsequent layer of powdered material is distributed on top of
16 the first layer. The second layer of powder material is in tum
17 selectively melted and subsequently allowed to cool and solidify.
18 Melting and solidifying are performed such that each layer
19 portion will adhere to the previously formed [layer] portion. The
20 process is repeated step-wise, until the entire product is formed,
21 by subsequently adding one powder material layer after the other
22 and selectively melting and solidifying layer portions
23 corresponding to subsequent cross-sections of the product.
24 (Tozzi, para. 42).
25 2. Rebak describes fabricating a gas turbine component 100, such
26 as a blade, having a coating 150 formed over a substrate 110. In order to
27 promote cooling of the component 100, the substrate 110 has one or more
28 grooves 132 formed on its outer surface to define micro-channels for
29 conducting cooling fluid beneath the surface of the coating 150. (See Rebak,
30 paras. 9 & 30; see also id., Fig. 2).
31 3. In order to assure that the coating 150, when applied to the
32 substrate 110, extends over the grooves 132 to form micro-channels rather
3 3 than entering into the grooves to produce a part having a grooved exterior
34 surface configuration rather than channels, the grooves are filled with a
4
Appeal2018-005460
Application 14/594,787
1 sacrificial filler 32 and a permanent filler 33 before the coating is applied.
2 (See Rebak, para. 32 & Fig. 6). Once the coating 150 is formed, the
3 sacrificial filler 32 is removed to define micro-channels 130 within the
4 grooves 13 2, covered by the permanent filler 3 3 and the coating 15 0. ( See
5 Rebak, para. 43; compare id., Fig. 7 with id., Fig. 8).
6 4. Rebak teaches that the layer of permanent filler typically is less
7 than 500 µm is thickness, and perhaps as little as 50 µm in thickness. (See
8 Rebak, para. 50).
9 5. Rebak teaches that:
10 For particular processes, the majority of the groove is filled with
11 a readily removable sacrificial filler 32 and a relatively small
12 amount of the permanent filler 33 is used. This facilitates use of
13 a second filler 33 that can withstand polishing (for example, grit
14 blast) or other operations performed prior to coating, as well as
15 withstanding the coating process itself. For particular
16 configurations, the sacrificial filler 32 is deposited within the
17 groove(s) 132 to a partial fill in a range of about 60-99.9 percent
18 of the depth of the respective groove 132, and the permanent
19 filler 33 is then deposited within the groove( s) 132 to at least a
20 full fill of the respective groove 132.
21 (Rebak para. 49). Rebak then teaches that, "[i]f the grooves are overfilled
22 with the second material 33, the excess material may be removed, for
23 example by application of a doctor blade or by polishing depending on the
24 type of filler 33 used, prior to deposition of the coating 150." (Id.)
25
26 ANALYSIS
27 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
28 the process described by Tozzi to use a doctor blade to remove unwanted
29 powder material from each layer prior to selective melting and solidification
5
Appeal2018-005460
Application 14/594,787
1 of the layer. (See Ans. 5). The Examiner find that this modification "would
2 [have] allow[ ed] for further control of the material being applied in Tozzi by
3 allowing easy removal of unwanted excess material when application
4 occurs." (Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that the step of "utilizing a
5 doctor blade in applying a layer of powdered material having a
6 predetermined layer thickness to a construction platform," as recited in claim
7 1, is sufficiently broad to encompass applying a layer of powder material
8 using a dispenser and then controlling the thickness of the layer using a
9 doctor blade.
10 The Appellants argue that Rebak fails to teach or suggest "using a
11 doctor blade to apply a layer of material having a predetermined thickness."
12 (App. Br. 5 (underlining in original). Claim 1 recites "utilizing a doctor
13 blade in applying a layer of powdered material having a predetermined layer
14 thickness to a construction platform," however. (Italics added to the claim
15 language for emphasis.) This language is sufficiently broad to encompass
16 utilizing a doctor blade in a process in which powder is applied, even if the
17 doctor blade itself is not used to apply (for example, dispense) the powder.
18 The Appellants point to nothing in the Specification persuasively
19 requiring a narrower interpretation. As the Appellants point out, the
20 Specification says that, "a layer of powdered material 160, with the aid of a
21 doctor blade 190, is applied with a predetermined thickness to a construction
22 platform (not shown)." (Spec. 9, 11. 22 & 23; see also "Reply to Examiner's
23 Answer," dated May 4, 2018 ("Reply Brief'), at 4 & 5). This passage,
24 however, merely says that the doctor blade 190 "aids" a process in which a
25 layer of powder material is applied, not that the doctor blade itself applies
26 the powder. The Specification does not appear to further describe the use of
6
Appeal2018-005460
Application 14/594,787
1 the doctor blade 190. As such, it is consistent with a broad interpretation of
2 the claim language. Because Rebak teaches utilizing a doctor blade in a
3 process in which powder is applied, albeit to control the thickness of the
4 powder layer, it teaches the quoted limitation.
5 The Appellants also argue that it would not have been obvious to
6 modify Tozzi's method in the fashion proposed by the Examiner, since:
7 it is only after the entire product is fabricated [ according to
8 Tozzi's process] that excess powder is removed[;] and because
9 that material is essentially stacked along the outside of the part
10 and not along the top of the part, using a doctor blade to remove
11 the excess material would damage the product.
12 (App. Br. 8, citing Tozzi, paras. 42 & 43). 2 This argument does not address
13 the Examiner's rationale for rejecting representative claim 1. The Examiner
14 is proposing using a doctor blade to remove excess powder material from the
15 top of a layer applied by a dispenser. The Appellants are discussing
16 removing loose powder from around a fabricated component at the
17 conclusion of the fabrication process. The potential damage to the
18 component that the Appellants posit would only occur if the doctor blade
19 were used in a fashion different from that posited by the Examiner. (See
20 Ans. 6). Therefore, the Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
2 On pages 5-8 of the Reply Brief, the Appellants argue that a device
describe by Tozzi for carrying out Tozzi's method would have required
substantial reconstruction and redesign to implement the modification
proposed by the Examiner. We do not address this argument, as it could
have been made in response to the Final Office Action, which outlined the
proposed modification; and because, given the procedural stage at which the
argument first was made, we are denied the Examiner's expert response to
the technical statements made by the Appellants' counsel in support of the
argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2).
7
Appeal2018-005460
Application 14/594,787
1 DECISION
2 We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10.
3 More specifically, we sustain the rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-10
4 under as being unpatentable over Tozzi and Rebak; and the rejection of
5 claim 5 under§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tozzi, Rebak and Clemen.
6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
7 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
8 § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8