Ex Parte Sparkes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14350714 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/350,714 04/09/2014
25871 7590 09/27/2018
SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, L.L.C.
8210 SOUTHPARK TERRACE
LITTLETON, CO 80120
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Sparkes
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.
0206.158 1710
EXAMINER
MAYY, MOHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
efspatents@sbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAR TIN SPARKES, WILLIAM O'NEILL, ANDREW
COCKBURN, ROCCO LUPOI, and MATTHEW BRAY 1
(Applicant: Laser Fusion Technologies, Ltd.)
Appeal2018---000273
Application 14/350,714
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, BRIAND. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Laser Fusion Technologies,
Ltd.
Appeal2018---000273
Application 14/350,714
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A coating process for the deposition of a layer of a first
material onto a substrate of a second material, the second material optionally
being different from the first material, the process including the steps:
entraining powder particles of the first material into a
carrier gas flow to form a powder beam directed to impinge on
the substrate, thereby defining a powder beam footprint region
at the substrate;
causing relative movement of the powder beam and the
substrate in a movement direction to move the powder beam
footprint relative to the substrate to deposit the layer of the first
material; and
operating a laser source to direct a laser beam along a
laser beam principal axis direction to provide a laser beam
footprint to cause direct, local heating of at least one of the
forward substrate region and the powder beam footprint
region, without macroscopic melting of the first material,
the laser beam principal axis direction being defined with reference to a
plane coincident with or tangential to a surface of the substrate at the centre
of the laser beam footprint in terms of an elevation angle from the plane to
the laser beam principal axis direction and in terms of an acute azimuthal
angle from the movement direction to the laser beam principal axis
direction, wherein the elevation angle is 80° or less and the azimuthal
angle is ±60° or less.
2
Appeal2018---000273
Application 14/350,714
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Kar
DeBiccari
US 6,203,861 Bl
US 2006/0133947 Al
Mar. 20, 2001
Jun.22,2006
Beyer, Modeling the Influence of Process Parameters and Additional Heat
Sources on Residual Stresses in Laser Cladding, Journal of Thermal Spray
Technology, vol. 16(3), 355-373 (2006).
Kulmala, Influence of Process Conditions in Laser-assisted Low-pressure
Cold Spraying, Surface and Coatings Technology 202, 4503--4508 (2008).
Christoulis, Cold-Spraying Coupled to Nano-Pulsed Nd-YaG Laser Surface
Pre-treatment, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, vol. 19(5), 1062-1073
(2010).
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kulmala in view of DeBiccari.
2. Claims 3--4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kulmala in view of DeBiccari, and in further view
of Kar.
3. Claims 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kulmala in view of DeBiccari, and further in view
of Christoulis.
4. Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kulmala in view of DeBiccari, and further in view of
Beyer.
3
Appeal2018---000273
Application 14/350,714
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of the
respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of
evidence on this record supports Appellants' position, and we thus reverse
each of the rejections essentially for the reasons provide by Appellants in the
record, with the following emphasis.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner's
interpretation of the secondary reference of DeBiccaro is in error. The
Examiner relies upon DeBicarro in an effort to supply the missing elements
of Kulmala (these missing elements are the claimed elevation angle and
azimuthal angle, with particular emphasis on the azimuthal angle). Ans. 2-
6. The Examiner acknowledges that Kulmala does not teach the claimed
elevation angle and azimuthal angle. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on
DeBiccari to allegedly show the missing angles.
Appellants argue that DeBiccari does not teach the claimed azimuthal
angle of ±60° or less for the reasons presented on pages 22-28 of the Appeal
Brief. Appellants buttress their position in the Reply Brief.
The recited azimuthal angle is illustrated by, for example, Figure 20
of the Specification (not reproduced here). The Specification explains that
the azimuthal angle is "the acute angle suspended between the movement
direction A and a projection of the laser beam direction onto the surface of
the substrate 100." Spec. 25:21-23.
Appellants submit that DeBiccari is silent concerning any azimuthal
angle, and DeBiccari has no plan view figure showing the laser beam
principal axis direction relative to the movement direction. Reply Br. 8. For
this reason alone, Appellants submit that the combination of Kulmala
4
Appeal2018---000273
Application 14/350,714
and DeBiccari fails to support an obviousness rejection of claim 1 since
neither of these references shows the claimed acute azimuthal angle of ±60°.
Id.
Appellants argue that, nonetheless, the Examiner speculates that as the
substrate of DeBiccari is held stationary in a first mode, the azimuthal angle
would be 0°. Ans. 13. Reply Br. 8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner further speculates that if the
substrate is rotated in a second mode, the azimuthal angle within one cycle
would range from ±360°. Ans. 13. Reply Br. 8-9.
Appellants submit that this is not a reasonable interpretation of
DeBiccari. Reply Br. 9. Appellants state that DeBiccari discloses that the
laser is positioned to heat the coating after the coating is deposited on the
substrate. See, e.g., DeBiccari, ,r,r 9 and 29. Appellants state that
this fundamental aspect of the positioning of the DeBiccari laser beam does
not change whether the substrate is stationary, articulated, rotated, or
translated. Reply Br. 9.
Appellants further argue that, as shown in DeBiccari' s Figure 1
(reproduced on page 10 of the Reply Brief), the laser is not positioned to
project through the powder beam from a zone opposite the growing
deposited layer.
On the contrary, Appellants states that DeBiccari's Figure 1 illustrates
the laser being projected to the side of the powder beam over the not-shown
deposited layer, since the laser is expressly positioned to heat and modify the
deposited layer itself. Reply Br. 9. DeBiccari discloses:
With proper settings, a laser could be passed directly over a deposited
layer to improve density (sintering) and/or raise the
5
Appeal2018---000273
Application 14/350,714
coating temperature high enough, for a short duration, to recover
ductility without significant beat input to the substrate material or
underlying prior cold sprayed layer (small thermal gradient). To this
end, the system 8 includes a laser 60 which maybe movable to allow
the laser beam to apply heat to the entire powder metal material
deposit.
DeBiccari, ,r 29. Reply Br. 9.
Thus, Appellants submit that if one skilled in the art were to speculate
regarding the possible range of azimuthal angles consistent with the
fundamental DeBiccari requirement that the deposited coating be
heated after deposition, and consistent with DeBiccari' s Figure 1 ( showing
that the laser does not cross the powder beam), the only possible range of
DeBiccari azimuthal angles are somewhere between -90° to -180° and/ or 90°
to 180°. Appellants set forth an illustration of this point on page 11 of the
Reply Brief.
Appellants state that, in summary, DeBiccari can at best only suggest
an azimuthal angle of -90° to -180° and/ or 90° to 180° to ensure that the
laser beam is positioned to heat the coating after the coating is deposited on
the substrate and to avoid passing through the powder beam itself. Reply Br.
11.
Appellants state that resulting "opposite" laser orientation of
DeBiccari when compared to claim 1 is illustrated by a side-by-side
comparison of the position of the deposited coating relative to the laser as
shown in DeBiccari' s Figure 1 with Appellants' Figure 19. This comparison
is set forth on page 12 of the Reply Brief.
Appellants submit that, as shown in the side-by-side comparison (see
again page 12 of the Reply Brief), the laser beam 106 of the present
6
Appeal2018---000273
Application 14/350,714
application has an azimuthal angle of ±60° from the direction of movement
to the laser beam principal axis direction causing the laser beam 106 to heat
at least one of the forward substrate region or the powder beam footprint
region before or as the first material is deposited. Reply Br. 12. Appellants
submit that this configuration avoids laser shading by the growing thickness
of the deposited material. Appellants states that, on the other hand,
DeBiccari at best suggests an azimuthal angle of -90° to -180° and/ or 90° to
180° from the direction of movement because the DeBiccari laser 60 must
heat the deposited material after the material is deposited on the substrate.
Reply Br. 12.
Appellants therefore submit that the combination of Kulmala and
DeBiccari does not teach or suggest "operating a laser source to direct a
laser beam along a laser beam principal axis ... to cause direct, local
heating of at least one of the forward substrate region and the powder beam
footprint region ... wherein the ... the azimuthal angle is ±60° or less" as
required by claim 1. Reply Br. 12.
We are persuaded by the aforementioned arguments made by
Appellants as supported by the preponderance of evidence in the record as
discussed by Appellants. As such, we are likewise persuaded that the
Examiner's position made on page 4 of the Answer is not adequately
supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record and note that the
Examiner does not adequately point to evidence in the record in support of
any reasoned analysis related to findings made pertaining to the azimuthal
angle values with regard to the teachings of DeBiccari. It is well settled that
the Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
7
Appeal2018---000273
Application 14/350,714
In view of the above, we thus reverse Rejection 1. Because the
Examiner does not rely upon the other additional references applied in the
other rejections to cure the stated deficiencies of the combination of Kulmala
in view of DeBiccari, we also reverse Rejections 2--4.
DECISION
Each rejection is REVERSED.
ORDER
REVERSED
8