Ex Parte White

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

11274974 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/274,974 11/16/2005 Dawn White DWH-12302/29 6907
25006 7590 02/01/2012
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021
EXAMINER
SELLS, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2012 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 DAWN WHITE
____________

Appeal 2010-003904
Application 11/274,974
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 5, all of the pending claims in the above-
identified application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal “relates generally to ultrasonic object
consolidation and, in particular, to closed-loop control of energy delivered in
such systems to optimize process parameters and enhance uniformity”

1 See Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 22, 2009, 1; and Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) filed October 1, 2010, 2.

Appeal 2010-003904
Application 11/274,974

2
(Spec. 1, ll. 5-7). Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in
representative claims 1 and 52 reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief as shown below:
1. A method of enhancing bond quality in an ultrasonic consolidation
process using a sonotrode having a power output level, comprising the steps
of:
moving a sonotrode laterally across the surface of an object having
one or more layers of material to be ultrasonically consolidated;

inputting a plurality of process parameters associated each
instantaneous geometry over which the ultrasonic consolidation is occurring
as the sonotrode moves across the surface;

correlating the process parameters with the minimum sonotrode power
level required to ultrasonically consolidate each instantaneous geometry; and

varying the relationship between the parameters as necessary to
optimize bond quality between layers of material as they are consolidated.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the process parameter is
temperature.

2 Appellant argues claims 1 through 4 as a group. (See App. Br. 2-4 and
Reply Br. 1-2.) Appellant argues claim 5 separately. (See App. Br. 4 and
Reply Br. 2.) Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we select claims 1 and
5 to decide the propriety of the Examiner’s rejections set forth in the
Answer. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“When multiple claims subject to
the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by appellant, the Board
may select a single claim from the group of claims that are argued together
to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of
rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone.”).

Appeal 2010-003904
Application 11/274,974

3
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following prior art references at page 3 of the
Answer:
Grewell ‘814 5,772,814 Jun. 30, 1998
Grewell ‘706 5,855,706 Jan. 5, 1999
White 6,519,500 B1 Feb. 11, 2003

Appellant seeks review of the following grounds of rejection
maintained by Examiner in the Answer:
1) Claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of White and Grewell ‘814; and
2) Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of White, Grewell ‘814 and Grewell ‘706. (See App.
Br. 2 and Ans.2.)

RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, ISSUE,
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
I. CLAIMS 1 THROUGH 4
White, like Appellant, teaches a system and a method of fabricating a
three-dimensional object on a substrate, including adding material layers
incrementally and consolidating the layers by using ultrasonic welding
equipment comprising an ultrasonic generator, a transducer, a booster and a
head unit called a horn or sonotrode. (Compare White, col. 4, ll. 8-41 with
Spec. 1-2.) White, like Appellant, also teaches consolidating the layers via
using one or more actuators controlled by a computer-aided design (CAD)
system, which hold the layered description (geometry) of the object, to
Appeal 2010-003904
Application 11/274,974

4
adjust or guide the orientation and direction of the sonotrode “so that
ultrasonic vibrations are transmitted in the direction required through the
common contact surfaces of the layers” that have been accurately positioned
and clamped under pressure. (Compare White, col. 4, ll. 42-54 and col. 8, ll.
36-67, with Spec. 2-5) Further, White, like Appellant, teaches that
sonotrode power supply and different joining parameters such as, amplitude
of the ultrasonic waves, pressure, and temperature, are result effective
variables for bonding layers and support materials of a given geometry.
(Compare White, col. 4, l. 64 to col. 5, l. 16, col. 6, ll. 26 to col. 7, l. 63, and
col. 12, ll. 51-65 with Spec. 2:26-29, 3:10-12, and 5:23-25.)
Appellant does not dispute that White and/or Grewell ‘814 teaches or
would have suggested an ultrasonic bonding method comprising “moving a
sonotrode laterally across the surface of an object having one or more layers
of material to be ultrasonically consolidated; [and] inputting a plurality of
process parameters associated each instantaneous geometry over which the
ultrasonic consolidation is occurring as the sonotrode moves across the
surface” as required by claim 1. (See App. Br. 2-4 and Reply Br. 1-2.)
Rather, Appellant contends that the White/Grewell ‘814 combination does
not suggest
correlating the process parameters with the minimum
sonotrode power level required to ultrasonically
consolidate each instantaneous geometry; and varying the
relationship between the parameters as necessary to
optimize bond quality between layers of material as they
are consolidated. [(See Reply Br. 1 and App. Br. 3.)]

Thus, the dispositive question raised by the Examiner and Appellant
is: Has the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that one of ordinary
Appeal 2010-003904
Application 11/274,974

5
skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the White/Grewell
‘814 combination, would have been led to correlate process parameters with
the minimum sonotrode power level required for ultrasonic consolidation of
a given geometry and vary the relationship between the parameters, as
necessary, to identify and employ optimum parameters for optimum quality
bonding of such geometry at the minimum sonotrode power level? On this
record, we answer this question in the negative.
As indicated supra, White teaches that sonotrode power levels and
process parameters, such as amplitude and temperature, affect the quality of
bonding for a given geometry. In other words, Sonotrode power levels and
process parameters are related to improving the quality of bonding and are
known result effective variables. Grewell ‘814, like White, teaches that such
parameters are known result effective variables and are adjusted based on
desired weld quality or weld strength (col. 1, ll. 33-65, col. 3, ll. 43-52, and
col. 4, ll. 39-64). Grewell ‘814 also teaches inputting estimated initial
bonding or welding parameters, such as weld time, booster horn amplitude,
etc. . . . at a given sonotrode power level and then varying and correlating
the parameters to identify and employ optimum parameters for optimum
bonding for a given geometry (col. 5, ll. 14-27, and col. 6, l. 9 to col. 7, l.
2).
Given the need for using the minimum sonotrode power level to
conserve energy and reduce the cost associated with energy as dictated by
the marketplace or common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art,
we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of
ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the
Appeal 2010-003904
Application 11/274,974

6
White/Grewell ‘814 combination, would have been led to correlate process
parameters with the minimum sonotrode power level required for ultrasonic
consolidation of a given geometry and vary the relationship between the
parameters, as necessary, to identify and employ optimum parameters for
optimum quality bonding of such geometry at the minimum sonotrode
power level within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). KSR Int’l. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ( “When there is a design need or
market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason
to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
to the anticipated success, it is likely the product . . . of ordinary skill and
common sense.”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009)(“[W]hile an analysis of obviousness always depends
on evidence that supports the required Graham factual findings, it also may
include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the
person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any
reference or expert opinion.”) As correctly found by the Examiner at pages
4 through 7 of the Answer, “one having ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to optimize known result effective variables” via correlating
and varying the parameters at the given minimum sonotrode power level in
the manner taught by Grewell ‘814. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d
1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result
effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the
art.”).

Appeal 2010-003904
Application 11/274,974

7

II. CLAIM 5
Notwithstanding Appellant’s argument at page 4 of the Appeal Brief
to the contrary, White teaches that the temperature is a result effective
variable for obtaining desired bonding as indicated supra. Grewell ‘706 also
teaches that the heating rate is a result effective variable for obtaining
desired bonding (col. 2, ll. 1-43). Thus, for the reasons indicated above, we
determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error on the part of
the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with
the knowledge reflected in the White/Grewell ‘814/Grewell ‘706
combination, would have been led to correlate process parameters, including
temperature, with the minimum sonotrode power level required for
ultrasonic consolidation of a given geometry and vary the relationship
between such parameters, as necessary, to identify and employ optimum
parameters for optimum quality bonding of such geometry at the minimum
sonotrode power level within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1
through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that 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

cam