Ex Parte Southard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2018

14162829 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/162,829
61654 7590
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
01/24/2014
10/10/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bari Marc Southard
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.
1510801.202US2 1164
EXAMINER
WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2018 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):
patent@lockelord.com
swofsy@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARI MARC SOUTHARD
Appeal2017-008810
Application 14/162,829
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and JANEE.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision
finally rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed
January 24, 2014 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated June 20, 2016 ("Final");
Appeal Brief filed December 29, 2016 ("Br."); and Examiner's Answer dated
March 3, 2017 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant and the real party in interest: Goodrich Corporation.
See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008810
Application 14/162,829
The invention relates "to a method for manufacturing an ultra low expansion
(ULE) glass mirror substrate using an additive manufacturing process." Spec. 1,
2nd para. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claims on appeal.
1. A method of manufacturing a mirror substrate,
comprising the steps of:
a) providing a polishable substrate surface layer formed from
ULE glass;
b) depositing successive layers of powdered ULE glass onto the
polishable substrate surface layer; and
c) selectively lasing each successive layer of powdered ULE
glass to produce successive fused layers ofULE glass joined to one
another to form a mirror substrate having a three-dimensional
topology.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. claims 1--4, 7-9, 11, 13, 14 and 17-19 over Bluege et al. (US
4,814,232, iss. Mar. 21, 1989) in view of Barrett et al. (US 2003/0226377 Al,
pub. Dec. 11, 2003); and
2. claims 5, 6, 12, 15 and 16 over Bluege in view of Barrett and
Milamed (US 4,313,749, iss. Feb. 2, 1982).
Appellant's arguments in support of patentability as to all appealed claims
are based on limitations common to independent claims 1 and 11. See Br. 5-7.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the Examiner finds Bluege discloses a method as
claimed with the exception of using powdered ULE glass to form the layers. Final
3--4 (citing Bluege 4:32-5: 12). In particular, the Examiner finds Bluege discloses
depositing an intermediate layer by plasma spraying and then applying subsequent
layers using conventional techniques, followed by selective lasing in the form of
laser/high energy beam polishing after depositing each layer in order to melt and
2
Appeal2017-008810
Application 14/162,829
densify/fuse the layers to each other. Id. The Examiner finds Barrett discloses a
method of forming a mirror substrate comprising depositing successive layers of
powdered ULE glass onto a surface and heat treating to fuse the layers together.
Id. at 4 (citing, e.g., Barrett ,r,r 1, 8-9, 25). The Examiner further finds Barrett
discloses that the ULE glass was used to form mirrors for reflecting beams of light.
Id. ( citing Barrett ,r 5). The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have formed the intermediate layers of Bluege from
ULE glass powder based on Barrett's disclosure that this was a known technique
for forming light beam reflecting mirrors. Id.
Appellant contends the claims recite an additive process involving
successive steps of depositing a layer of powdered ULE glass followed by lasing,
thereby building a structure comprising fused layers of ULE glass. Br. 6.
Appellant argues Bluege is directed to a subtractive process, or, at best, a net zero
process. Id. at 5. More specifically, Appellant contends Blueage uses a laser to
polish an existing layer, but does not disclose applying a laser to a powder to create
a layer. Id. Appellant further argues that even if the teachings of Bluege and
Barrett were properly combinable, the claimed invention would not result, noting
that Barrett discloses placing powder in a furnace, not lasing successive layers of
powdered ULE glass. Id. at 6.
Having considered Appellant's and the Examiner's respective positions, and
the evidence cited of support thereof, we determine a preponderance of the
evidence favors the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness for the reasons
expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We agree with the Examiner
that there is no support for Appellant's assertion that Bluege fails to teach an
additive process. See Ans. 3. As noted by the Examiner (id. at 3), Bluege teaches
depositing a first layer on a substrate surface by plasma spraying, and then
3
Appeal2017-008810
Application 14/162,829
applying subsequent layers by conventional techniques. Bluege 4:32-38. Bluege
discloses that each layer is polished by a high energy beam to partially or
completely melt only the outer portion of that layer, resulting in densification and
smoothing of the layer surface. Id. at 4:42-50. We further determine the
Examiner had a reasonable basis for finding that the ordinary artisan would have
looked to Barrett in considering appropriate, conventional techniques for
depositing layers in Bluege's method. See Final 4; Ans. 3. As found by the
Examiner (Final 4 ), Barrett discloses that it was known in the art to heat powdered
titania-containing silica to form ULE glass in the manufacture of elements used in
mirrors. Barrett ,r,r 5, 9, 25.
In sum, we find the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner are
supported by the evidence of record. Appellant's unsupported assertions that
Bluege' s laser polishing is not the same as the selective lasing step recited in
claims 1 and 11, and that the combination of Bluege and Barrett would not have
resulted in the claimed invention, are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness as to claims 1--4, 7-9, 11, 13, 14 and 17-19.
Appellant's traversal of the second ground of rejection is limited to an
assertion that Milamed fails to cure the deficiencies of Bluege and Barrett with
resect to independent claims 1 and 7. Br. 7. Accordingly, we likewise are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness as to claims 5,
6, 12, 15, and 16.
For the reasons stated in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and above, the
rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-19 are sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4