Sciperio, Inc

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 23, 2021

2020005070 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2021)

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.
15/632,575 06/26/2017 Kenneth H. Church Sciperio-P0005 7290
133690 7590 08/23/2021
Goodhue, Coleman & Owens, P.C.
12951 University Ave
Suite 201
Clive, IA 50325
EXAMINER
MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
docketing@goodhue.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH H. CHURCH, PAUL DEFFENBAUGH,
CASEY PERKOWSKI, and CHARLES MICHAEL NEWTON
Appeal 2020-0050701
Application 15/632,575
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 As Appellant points out, this appeal is related to Appeal 2020-003880
regarding Application 15/711,968. A Decision in that appeal was issued on
May 28, 2021.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 26, 2017
(“Spec.”); the Final Office Action dated November 7, 2019 (“Final Act.”);
the Appeal Brief filed March 31, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer dated April 27, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed June 26,
2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant3 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–9, 12, 13, and 15–19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to selective laser sintered fused deposition
printing. Spec. 1, ll. 1, 10–11. Independent claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of additive manufacturing of an object
comprising:
directing laser energy from a laser to a region for
material deposition;
extruding material using an extruder at the region of
material deposition;
sensing temperature within the region of the material
deposition; and
electronically controlling the laser energy in a closed
feedback loop using the temperature sensed within
[] the region for material deposition so as to
sufficiently heat the region for material deposition
prior to extruding the material;
wherein the region for material deposition is a part of a
prior layer of the material deposited using the
extruder.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).

3 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sciperio, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 15,4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Mok5 in view of Mayer;6
II. Claims 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mok, Mayer, and Costin;7
III. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mok, Mayer, and Buller;8
IV. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Mok, Mayer, and Dietrich;9
V. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Mok, Mayer, and Komatsu;10
VI. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Mok, Mayer, and Schillen;11
VII. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
unpatentable over Mok, Mayer, Schillen, and Costin; and

4 Although the rejection lists claim 15 in the statement of rejection and
discusses claim 15 in the body of the rejection, the Final Office Action also
indicates that claim 15 is allowable. Compare Final Act. 3, with id. at 7.
Because the status of claim 15 is unclear, and Appellant argues that claim 15
is patentable over Mok and Mayer (Appeal Br. 15), we continue to list
claim 15 as part of this rejection in the Decision. The rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok and Mayer was withdrawn in the
Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 3.
5 Mok et al., US 2002/0129485 A1, published Sept. 19, 2002.
6 Mayer, US 2013/0009338 A1, published Jan. 10, 2013.
7 Costin et al., US 2009/0266804 A1, published Oct. 29, 2009.
8 Buller et al., US 2015/0367415 A1, published Dec. 24, 2015.
9 Dietrich et al., US 2015/0048553 A1, published Feb. 19, 2015.
10 Komatsu et al., US 2010/0148387 A1, published June 17, 2010.
11 Schillen et al., US 2009/0020901 A1, published Jan. 22, 2009.
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

4
VIII. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mok, Mayer, and Phillippi.12
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)).
After review of the cited evidence in light of the Appellant’s and the
Examiner’s opposing positions, we determine that the Appellant has not
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections except where
otherwise explained below. Thus, where we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections, we do so for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action, the
Answer, and below.
Rejection I – Obviousness over Mok and Mayer
Appellant’s arguments focus on the subject matter of claim 1 (Appeal
Br. 10–14). Appellant additionally argues the subject matter of claims 6, 15,
16, and 19 (Appeal Br. 14–17). Any claim not argued separately will stand
or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).

12 Philippi et al., US 2009/0152771 A1, published June 18, 2009.
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

5
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5
The Examiner finds that Mok teaches a method for additive
manufacturing an object that includes claim 1’s “extruding” and “directing
laser energy” steps, but is silent regarding claim 1’s “sensing” and
“electronically controlling” steps. Final Act. 2 (citing Mok ¶¶ 3–6, 136,
137). The Examiner finds that Mayer teaches an additive three-dimensional
fabrication process that includes an extruder and heat source as well as a
sensor that is operably used with a controller in a feedback loop to maintain
temperature. Id. (citing Mayer ¶¶ 15–18, 24, Fig. 1. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to incorporate sensors and a feedback loop, as taught in Mayer, in Mok’s
method to control the temperature when fabricating its three-dimensional
objects. Id.
Appellant argues that in claim 1’s method the laser heats an already
created layer of the object whereas in Mok, the laser heats powder to create a
layer of the object. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that these are two
different methods and thus Mok does not teach “extruding material using an
extruder to form a layer of the object[,] directing laser energy from a laser to
a region for material deposition, the region for material deposition being
located on the layer of the object.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Claim 1 recites “directing laser energy from a laser to
a region for material deposition[, and] extruding material using an extruder
at the region of the material deposition.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). As is
evident, claim 1 does not recite “extruding material using an extruder to
form a layer of the object,” as argued by Appellant. Appeal Br. 12. Nor does
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

6
claim 1 require that the laser energy is applied to a region for material
deposition immediately following extruding new material. Mok teaches a
process for making a three-dimensional object that includes extruding
powder-form metal build material from an extruder and directing a
continuous CO2 laser to the region where the material is deposited to form a
layer of build material. Mok ¶¶ 117, 136–137. Mok teaches that this process
of extruding and performing laser cladding is repeated until the three-
dimensional object is completely build. Id. ¶ 144. Consequently, once the
first layer of build material is formed, the region for material deposition in
Mok’s method is a part of a prior layer of material deposited using the
extruder.
Appellant also asserts that neither Mok nor Mayer teaches the claimed
temperature feedback and laser heating of a region prior to deposition.
Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant’s contention does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection because merely reciting the claim language, and
asserting that the Examiner’s findings do not describe such limitations is not
a persuasive argument. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”). Moreover, Mayer teaches sensing the
temperature of the surface of the build platform, i.e., the region for material
deposition. Mayer ¶ 23.
Because Appellant has not identified reversible error in the rejection
of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

7
Claim 19
Claim 19 is directed to a system for additive manufacturing, where the
system requires, among other things, a control system configured to:
to build an object comprising a plurality of layers of the material
and to control the directing of the laser energy onto the surface
in a closed feedback loop based on the temperature at the surface
sensed using the heat detector to heat a region of the surface
formed from a prior layer of the material prior to extruding the
material onto the surface to form a current layer.
Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims App.).
In the Answer, the Examiner relies on Mok’s solid free-form
fabrication (SFF) system and Mayer’s control of the temperature and finds
that:
it is well understood per the art that such an SFF system would
inherently have included a control system. The claimed
controller steps are the same as those claimed in the process, and
therefore are fully addressed – the only missing piece in the claim
rejection is an explicit statement that Mok teaches a control
system to control the claimed (and taught) elements. But Mok
teaches throughout the specification the use of a control system
- see [0007, 21, 67-69, 78-79] and fully explains the computer
control system and its specific use in an SFF system in [0093-
0110], therefore supporting that in fact that the claimed control
system is implicit with Mok’s SFF system that is addressed in
the rejection of claim 1.
Ans. 12.
Appellant argues that Mok does not teach claim 19’s control system
because “[a]s the Examiner recognizes, Mok does not teach sensing a
temperature within the deposition region and Mok does not teach
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

8
electronically controlling the laser in a closed feedback loop.” Appeal Br.
14–15.
Appellant’s argument identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that the meaning of the phrase
“configured to” generally means “made to,” “adapted to,” and “designed to,”
though it can be used more broadly to mean “capable of” or “suitable for.”
In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (referencing dictionaries)). Based on our review of the
Specification (e.g., Spec. 5, l. 29–6, l. 11, Fig.1), we determine that a person
skilled in the art would understand that claim 19’s “control system” is
specially designed or programmed to accomplish the specific purpose recited
in the “configured” clause of claim 19—“to control the directing of the laser
energy onto the surface in a closed feedback loop based on the temperature
at the surface sensed using the heat detector to heat a region of the surface
formed from a prior layer of the material prior to extruding the material onto
the surface to form a current layer.”
Consistent with our claim interpretation above, to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 19, Mok’s control system
must be designed to control the directing of the laser energy onto the surface
based on the temperature at the surface sensed using the heat detector to
heat a region of the surface formed from a prior layer of the material prior
to extruding the material onto the surface to form a current layer.
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

9
The Examiner finds that Mayer, not Mok, teaches control of the
temperature during additive manufacturing, i.e., sensing the temperature
within the region of material deposition. Final Act. 2; Ans. 12. As Appellant
correctly argues, the Examiner acknowledges that Mok does not teach
sensing a temperature within the deposition region or electronically
controlling the laser energy using the temperature. Appeal Br. 14–15; Final
Act. 2. Thus, Mok’s disclosure identified by the Examiner is insufficient to
establish that Mok’s control system is “configured to control the directing of
the laser energy onto the surface . . . based on the temperature at the surface
sensed using the heat detector to heat a region of the surface formed from a
prior layer of the material prior to extruding the material onto the surface to
form a current layer” as recited in claim 19.
For the reasons above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 19.
Claims 6 and 15
Claims 6 and 15, which ultimately depend from claim 1, recite “the
laser energy textures the region for material deposition.”
The Examiner finds that because “texturing” is not particularly
limited, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Mok’s
laser results in a texture of the surface. See Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that neither Mok nor Mayer teaches “texturing” as
claimed, and the Examiner has failed to explain how either reference teaches
this limitation. Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant’s argument identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection. During prosecution, an applicant’s claims are given their broadest
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

10
reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim
must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. Although
Appellant’s Specification does not define what is meant by “textures,” in the
context of Appellant’s Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation
of a region for material deposition that includes “textures” is a region
surface that is not smooth. Spec. 7, ll. 14–19, Fig. 11 (depicting a surface for
material deposition that includes micro pits). On this record, the Examiner
has not identified sufficient factual evidence that Mok’s laser changes the
smoothness of the region for material deposition. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 15.
Rejections II–VIII
Appellant does not present substantive patentability arguments
addressing the separate § 103 rejections of claims 7–9, 12, 13, and 16–18.13
Appeal Br. 16–18. Thus, we sustain the rejections of those claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–9, 12, 13, and 15–19
is affirmed in part.

13 Appellant only presents separate patentability arguments regarding the
rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok and Mayer. Appeal
Br. 17.
Appeal 2020-005070
Application 15/632,575

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6,
15, 19
103 Mok, Mayer 1, 2, 4, 5 6, 15, 19
7, 17, 18 103 Mok, Mayer,
Costin
7, 17, 18
8, 9 103 Mok, Mayer,
Buller
8, 9
12 103 Mok, Mayer,
Dietrich
12
13 103 Mok, Mayer,
Komatsu
13
16 103 Mok, Mayer,
Schillen
16
17, 18 103 Mok, Mayer,
Schillen, Costin
17, 18
16, 17 103 Mok, Mayer,
Philippi
16, 17
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 5, 7–
9, 12, 13,
16–18
6, 15, 19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART