Srikanth Chandrudu. Kottilingam et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 24, 2019

14037887 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2019)

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.
14/037,887 09/26/2013 Srikanth Chandrudu KOTTILINGAM 270439/22113-0185-01 6923
13152 7590 07/24/2019
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
EXAMINER
HILL, STEPHANI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2019 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 SRIKANTH CHANDRUDU KOTTILINGAM,
BENJAMIN PAUL LACY, CARLOS MIGUEL MIRANDA, and
DAVID EDWARD SCHICK
____________

Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–5, 7–10, 13, 14, and 16–26. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 Appellants identify the Inventors and the Applicant, General Electric
Company, as the real parties in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 26,
2013, Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed February 1, 2018, the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated May 30, 2018, and Appellants’ Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed July 16, 2018. We note, but do not cite,
Appellants’ Supplemental Appeal Brief filed February 27, 2018.
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a method of forming a component with a
cooling member and a thermal management process of the component.
Spec. ¶¶ 7, 8. The forming method comprises forming at least one portion
of the component, printing a cooling member of the component, and
attaching the at least one portion to the cooling member of the component.
Id. ¶ 7. The cooling member has at least one cooling feature including a
cooling channel located within about 127 µm to about 762 µm from the
component surface. Id. Appellants disclose that the term “printing” refers
to a three-dimensional printing process, including any current or future
process that includes the build-up of materials layer by layer. Id. ¶ 21.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitations at issue
are italicized.
1. A method of manufacturing a component comprising:
forming a cooling member portion of the component;
wherein the forming of the cooling member includes printing at
least one cooling feature in at least one segment of the cooling
member portion, the at least one segment of the cooling
member portion having a length and a width dimension;
wherein the at least one cooling feature comprises at least one
interior cooling cavity and at least one cooling channel, the at
least one interior cooling cavity running from a first end to a
second end along the length dimension of the cooling member,
and, the at least one cooling channel adjacent to and extending
parallel to the width dimension across a surface of the cooling
member, at least a portion of the at least one cooling channel
being within the cooling member and at a distance from about
127 micrometers (0.005 inches) to less than 254 micrometers
(0.010 inches) from the surface of the cooling member, the at
least one cooling channel interconnecting through a first end
opening to the at least one interior cooling cavity and through a
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

3
second end opening to the surface of the cooling member to
provide a fluid pathway therebetween;
separately forming at least one or more additional
portions of the component, at least one of the one or more
additional portions adapted for attachment to the cooling
member; and,
attaching at least one of the one or more additional
portions of the component to the cooling member portion of the
component.

REFERENCES
The following prior art references have been relied in the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal:
Stecura et al. (“Stecura”) US 4,055,705 Oct. 25, 1977
Starkweather (“Starkweather”) US 2002/0119047 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Devore et al. (“Devore1”) US 2011/0123311 A1 May 26, 2011
Devore et al. (“Devore2”)3 US 2011/0236178 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
Godfrey et al. (“Godfrey”) US 2013/0195673 A1 Aug. 1, 2013

Lei Wang and Bengt Sunden (“Wang”), Experimental Investigation of Local
Heat Transfer in a Square Duct With Various-Shaped Ribs, Heat Mass
Transfer (2007) 43:759–766.

Enrico Sciubba (“Sciubba”), Air-Cooled Gas Turbine Cycles—Part 1: An
Analytical Method for the Preliminary Assessment of Blade Cooling Flow
Rates, Energy (2015) 1–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.107.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):

3 The Examiner refers to this reference as Kaufman, apparently to
distinguish this reference from Devore1. We utilize the conventional
practice of referring to this reference using the surname of the first named
inventor, adding “1” or “2” to distinguish these references.
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

4
1. Claims 1–5, 7–10, 13, 14, 16, and 19–21 as unpatentable over
Godfrey in view of Devore1;
2. Claim 17 as unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Devore1, and
further in view of Devore2;
3. Claim 18 as unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Devore1, and
further in view of Stecura;
4. Claim 22 as unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Devore1, and
further in view of Wang;
5. Claims 23 and 24 as unpatentable over Godfrey in view of
Devore1 and Wang, and further in view of Starkweather, as evidenced
by Sciubba;
6. Claim 25 as unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Devore1, as
evidenced by Sciubba; and
7. Claim 26 as unpatentable over Godfrey in view of Devore1, and
further in view of Starkweather, as evidenced by Sciubba.

ANALYSIS

After review of Appellants’ and the Examiner’s opposing positions,
the applied prior art, and Appellants’ claims and Specification, we determine
that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we sustain the stated obviousness rejections
for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office Action. We offer the
following for emphasis only.

Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

5
Rejection 1: Obviousness of claims 1–5, 7–10, 13, 14, 16, and 19–21 over
Godfrey and Devore1

We address claims separately from representative claim 1 only to the
extent that they have been argued separately pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, claims 2–5, 7–10, 13, 14, 16, and 19–21 stand
or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Godfrey teaches a method for forming a
turbine component comprising a first portion that is formed using additive
layer manufacturing, forging, or casting, and forming a second portion on
the first portion with additive manufacturing to form the component,
wherein different portions may include a tip, a hub, and a blade. Final Act.
6. The Examiner determines that the first portion reads on the at least one or
more additional portions of the component, additive manufacturing reads on
printing, the second portion reads on the at least one segment of the cooling
member portion of the component, and forming a second portion on the first
portion with additive manufacturing reads on attaching at least one of the
one or more additional portions of the component to the cooling member
portion of the component. Id. The Examiner acknowledges that Godfrey is
silent as to the structure of the blade component. Id. at 7.
However, the Examiner finds that Devore1 teaches an airfoil for a gas
turbine component comprising internal cooling passages and microcircuits
with inlets from the passages and outlets on the skin of the pressure side of
the airfoil. Final Act. 7. The Examiner further finds that Devore1’s
microcircuit thickness, as measured into the wall, is approximately about
254 µm to about 762 µm. Id. The Examiner determines that Devore1’s
airfoil corresponds to Godfrey’s turbine blade portion and at least on
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

6
segment of a cooling member portion of the component, the internal cooling
passages read on the recited at least one interior cooling cavity, and the
microcircuits read on at least on cooling channel. Id. In addition, the
Examiner determines that Devore1’s microcircuit thickness of
“approximately about 0.010 inch (0.254 mm)” (Devore1 ¶ 20) encompasses
values below 0.010 inches which overlaps the recited range. Id. The
Examiner also notes that because Devore1’s microcircuits run to the surface
of the component, the thickness runs from approximately about 0.010 inches
to 0 inches at the surface. Id. at 7–8.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to form a
turbine blade having a structure shown in Devore1 using the manufacturing
process of Godfrey to provide Godfrey’s component with cooling passages
and microcircuits in order to form cooling circuits within the turbine
component that provide cooling air to the component, thereby prolonging
component life and minimizing strength decreases due to high temperatures.
Final Act. 8.
Appellants argue that Godfrey fails to teach printing of any cooling
feature, including cooling channels and cavities. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants
also argue that Devore1 fails to disclose how the component including the
cooling passages and microcircuits disclosed therein was formed. Id. at 10.
However, the Examiner did not rely on either Godfrey or Devore1 alone for
teaching the printing of cooling channels and cavities in the component.
Instead, the Examiner relied on a combination of Godfrey’s process of
printing turbine components and Devore1’s teaching of a turbine component
having cooling passages and microcircuits for prolonging component life
and minimizing strength decreases due to high temperatures.
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

7
Thus, pointing out that each reference does not disclose an element of
the claim is not helpful in identifying reversible error by the Examiner when
the Examiner is not relying on the reference for teaching that claim element.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when
the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read,
not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior
art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Therefore, these arguments as not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants further argue that Godfrey fails to separately form at least
one or more additional portions of the component and attaching at least one
of the one or more additional portions of the component to the cooling
member portion of the component. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellants assert that
Godfrey forms a second portion on the first portion by additive
manufacturing, which is a unitary formation of the second portion on the
first portion rather than separate formation of the second portion. Id. at 9.
In addition, Appellants assert that Godfrey does not attach the first portion to
the second, additive manufactured portion. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds that Godfrey teaches that the first
portion may be manufactured by rapid prototyping, additive manufacturing,
forging, or casting. Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds Godfrey teaches that,
if additive manufactured is used for both portions of the component, they
may be made from different materials. Id. The Examiner determines that
any of these processes reads on the recited step of separately forming at least
one or more additional portions of the component. Id. In addition, the
Examiner interprets the recited attaching step as not requiring that the
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

8
attachment be separate and distinct from the forming of the second or
cooling member portion of the component and that claim 1 does not require
any specific order of the steps. Id. The Examiner, therefore, determines that
claim 1 does not preclude performing the attaching step while performing
the forming step. Id.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s interpretation that claim 1
does not require a specific order of the steps is incorrect. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants urge that “it is inherently necessary that both the cooling member
portion of the component and the separately formed additional portion of the
component must exist[,]” because of the antecedent bases of the terms in the
attaching step. Id. Appellants urge that the cooling member portion does
not exist until the specifically recited features of the cooling member portion
are formed. Id. As such, Appellants contend that the attaching step must
occur after the cooling member has been formed. Id.
These arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. We begin, appropriately, with the claim’s words. See
Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(explaining that anticipation and obviousness require comparison of the
properly construed claims to the available prior art). During examination,
claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with
the specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
Here, claim 1 requires a step of forming a cooling member portion, a
step of separately forming at least one or more additional portions, and a
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

9
step of attaching at least one of the one or more additional portions. Claim 1
also recites that at least one of the one or more additional portions is
“adapted for attachment to the cooling member.” However, Appellants
neither explain how this feature imposes any structural limitation on the at
least one of the one or more additional portions nor does Appellants’
disclosure appear to impose any such structural limitation. Indeed,
Appellants disclose that the cooling member is attached to at least one
portion by any suitable joining technique, including brazing, welding,
transient liquid phase bonding, diffusion bonding, or mechanical means,
without any description of how the additional portion is adapted for
attachment to the cooling member. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 26.
Although Appellants contend that the antecedent bases in the
attaching step require that at least one of the one or more additional portions
and the cooling member exist prior to performing the attaching step, we
disagree. There is no limitation set forth in claim 1 that requires that the
separately forming step and the attaching step are performed sequentially
rather than simultaneously. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, antecedent
basis for the additional portion and the cooling member portion alone does
not require that these structures are fully formed prior to the attachment step
being performed. For example, because there is no structural limitation on
the additional portion and Godfrey’s additive manufacturing separately
forms the component layer by layer, each layer reasonably may be
considered an additional portion of the component. Further, as each layer is
formed over the subsequent layers, its formation simultaneously attaches
that layer to the underlying layers. This interpretation is consistent with
Appellants’ Specification which discloses that an atomized powder is melted
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

10
“to form a portion or layer of a three-dimensional product, such as, a
segment of cooling member 120 or at least one portion 110 of a component
100.” Spec. ¶ 24.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Devore1
meets the cooling channel portion distance limitation of claim 1 because
Devore1’s teaching is as to thickness of the microcircuits rather than
distance from the cooling member surface. Appeal Br. 10. In addition,
Appellants assert that Devore1 fails to teach that the distance is at least less
than about 254 µm. Id. at 11.
However, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 7–8), Devore1 teaches that
the microcircuit thickness t, as measure into the wall, may be approximately
about 254 µm to approximately about 762 µm, for a turbine blade having a
wall thickness T about 1.143–3.175 mm. The Examiner determines that the
wall thickness between the cooling channel and the surface of the
component is calculated by (T-t)/2, where the cooling channel is centered in
the wall, producing a wall thickness range of 190–1460 µm. Id. at 8. As the
Examiner finds (id. at 8), this range overlaps the wall thickness range recited
in claim 1. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In cases
involving ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that
even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of
obviousness.”). Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s explanation and
determination and, therefore, their argument is not persuasive of reversible
error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1–5, 7–10, 13, 14, 16, and 19–21 over the combination of Godfrey
and Devore1.
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

11
Rejection 2: Obviousness of claim 17 over Godfrey, Devore1, and Devore2
Claim 17 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the at least
one cooling channel has a varying geometry throughout the cooling member
by either narrowing or widening along the length thereof.
Appellants argue that the Examiner does not specifically address the
limitation that the channel has a varying geometry throughout the cooling
member. Appeal Br. 12. However, the Examiner finds that Devore2 teaches
an turbine airfoil cooling arrangement where the cooling channels widen as
they near the outlet. Final Act. 15. Indeed, Devore2 teaches that the
channels have a varying geometry throughout the cooling member, including
the flared or widening at the outlet. Devore2 ¶¶ 26–37, Figs. 4A–4G. The
Examiner finds that, in light of Devore2’s teaching, the ordinary artisan
would have understood that varying the channel geometry changes the
airflow in the channel and the channel’s cooling ability. Ans. 8. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to widen the
microcircuit cooling channels of the Godfrey as modified by Devore1 in
order to facilitate a smooth transition through the outlet, to increase a film
cooling coverage zone, and to achieve the desired airflow pattern and
cooling. Final Act. 12; Ans. 8.
According, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
17 over the combination of Godfrey, Devore1, and Devore2.

Rejection 3: Obviousness of claim 18 over Godfrey, Devore1, and Stecura
Claim 18 depends from claim 1, and further requires applying at least
one protective coating after the attaching step.
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

12
The Examiner finds Stecura teaches a ceramic thermal barrier coating
for use on the surface of a turbine blade. Final Act. 16. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to apply a thermal barrier coating
as taught by Stecura on the component of Godfrey as modified by Devore1
to permit the use of higher operating temperatures and improve the turbine
engine efficiency. Id.
Appellants do not address this rejection, instead arguing that neither
Devore1 nor Stecura teach how the cooling passages and microcircuits are
formed. As indicated above, this argument merely argues the references
individually and fails to address the Examiner’s proposed combination of the
references. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 18 over the
combination of Godfrey, Devore1, and Stecura.

Rejection 4: Obviousness of claim 22 over Godfrey, Devore1, and Wang
Independent claim 22 recites a method of manufacturing a component
that includes at least one cooling member, similar to claim 1, comprising
forming the cooling member in one or more discrete segments by printing,
forming one or more additional parts by printing and/or casting, and joining
the cooling member to the one or more additional parts.
Appellants argue that Godfrey fails to teach forming one or more
additional parts of the component by one or more of printing and casting
because Godfrey’s additive manufacturing simply builds up the first portion
to form the component. Appeal Br. 14. In addition, Appellants argue that
Godfrey fails to teach the recited joining step. Id.
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

13
However, similarly to claim 1, claim 22 fails to recite any structural
limitation for the one or more additional parts of the component nor any
limitation as to the order of steps. As discussed above with regard to
Rejection 1, Godfrey’s additive manufacturing forms the component layer
by layer, wherein each layer reasonably may be considered an additional
portion of the component. Further, as each layer is formed over the
subsequent layers, its formation simultaneously joins that layer to the
underlying layers. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive of reversible
error.
Appellants next argue that neither Devore 1 nor Wang teaches or
suggests printing the cooling channels of the component. Appeal Br. 15.
However, the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on either of Devore1 or
Wang to teach that their components are formed by printing, but instead
relies on Godfrey for this limitation. In addition, the Examiner finds that
Godfrey teaches that the turbine component may include internal cooling
passages, thereby further supporting the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to have used Godfrey’s process for forming cooling
passages and microcircuits as taught by Devore1 with a semicircular cross-
section as taught by Wang. Final Act. 16–19; Ans. 4.
Appellants next repeat their argument, as made against Rejection 1,
that the Examiner erred in finding that Devore1 meets the cooling channel
portion distance limitation of claim 1 because Devore1’s teaching is as to
thickness of the microcircuits rather than distance from the cooling member
surface. Appeal Br. 15–16. However, for the same reasons given above,
this argument is not persuasive of reversible error.

Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

14
Rejection 5: Obviousness of claims 23 and 24 over Godfrey, Devore1,
Wang, Starkweather, and Sciubba

Appellants merely rely on the arguments raised against Rejection 4
and assert that the Examiner has not pointed to anything in Devore1, Wang,
Starkweather, and Sciubba as to how the specific method steps of claims 23
and 24 are met. However, as discussed above Appellants’ arguments as to
Rejection 4 are not persuasive of reversible error as to claim 22, and
Appellants’ “separate” argument as to claims 23 and 24 amounts to no more
than a generic denial that the applied references teach or suggest the
additional limitations. We and our reviewing court have long held that such
“argument” does not merit separate consideration. See, e.g., 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.”).

Rejection 6: Obviousness of claim 25 over Godfrey, Devore1, and Sciubba
Independent claim 25 recites a similar method of manufacturing a
component, similar to claim 1, comprising printing a cooling member
portion of the component with one segment of this portion including cooling
channels and another segment lacking cooling channels, joining the
segments, forming one or more additional parts by printing and/or casting,
and joining the cooling member to the one or more additional parts.
Appellants again argue that Godfrey fails to teach printing of any
cooling feature, including cooling channels and cavities. Appeal Br. 18.
Appellants also argue that Devore1 fails to disclose forming any feature of
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

15
the component including the cooling passages and microcircuits by printing.
Id. at 19. As indicated above, this argument merely argues the references
individually and fails to address the Examiner’s proposed combination of the
references. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. The
Examiner did not rely on either Godfrey or Devore1 alone for teaching the
printing of cooling channels and cavities in the component. Instead, the
Examiner relied on a combination of Godfrey’s process of printing turbine
components and Devore1’s teaching of a turbine component having cooling
passages and microcircuits for prolonging component life and minimizing
strength decreases due to high temperatures. In addition, the Examiner finds
that Godfrey teaches that the turbine component may include internal
cooling passages, thereby further supporting the Examiner’s conclusion that
it would have been obvious to have used Godfrey’s process for forming
cooling passages and microcircuits as taught by Devore1.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner ignores several limitations of
claim 25 in interpreting Godfrey. Appeal Br. 18. First, Appellants contend
that Godfrey’s additive manufacturing process cannot reasonably be
interpreted as a “forming” a part of the component. Id. at 19. Second,
Appellants contend that because additive manufacturing simply builds up the
first portion to form a component, this method cannot be interpreted as
joining additional parts. Id. Third, Appellants contend that Godfrey fails to
disclose aligning the at least one cooling cavity of each segment. Id.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As to Appellants’
first contention, we note that Appellants do not explain nor is it readily
apparent why Godfrey’s additive manufacturing process, which is used to
form one or more portions of a turbine component, cannot reasonably be
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

16
interpreted as forming a part of the component. Indeed, additive
manufacturing is reasonably interpreted within the scope of “printing” as
disclosed in Appellants’ Specification, as explained above. With regard to
Appellants’ second contention, as we explained above, additive
manufacturing involves simultaneous formation and joining of two layers or
segments. In addition, in forming each successive layer or segment, each
layer necessarily must be aligned with the prior layer to ensure that the
formed part takes the desired shape. Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ third
contention, Godfrey’s additive manufacturing process inherently aligns
successive layers or segments being formed.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Devore1
meets the cooling channel portion distance limitation of claim 1 because
Devore1’s teaching is as to thickness of the microcircuits rather than
distance from the cooling member surface. Appeal Br. 10. In addition,
Appellants assert that Devore1 fails to teach that the distance is at least less
than about 254 µm. Id. at 11.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error for the same
reasons discussed above with regard to Rejection 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 25 over the combination of Godfrey, Devore1, and Sciubba.

Rejection 7: Obviousness of claim 26 over Godfrey, Devore1, Starkweather,
and Sciubba

Appellants merely rely on the arguments raised against Rejection 6.
Appeal Br. 21. However, as discussed above Appellants’ arguments as to
Rejection 4 are not persuasive of reversible error as to claim 22.
Appeal 2018-007652
Application 14/037,887

17
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 over the
combination of Godfrey, Devore1, Starkweather, and Sciubba.

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1–5, 7–10, 13, 14, and 16–26 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED