Delavan Inc

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 13, 2020

2020000627 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2020)

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. 14/860,797 09/22/2015 Thomas J. Ocken 1510801.453US1 9218 61654 7590 11/13/2020 Locke Lord LLP P.O. BOX 55874 BOSTON, MA 02205 EXAMINER GRAHAM, ANDREW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2020 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 PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS J. OCKEN Appeal 2020-000627 Application 14/860,797 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 5–12. See Final Act. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Delavan Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000627 Application 14/860,797 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER “The present disclosure relates to additive manufacturing, and more particularly to surface finishing internal passages in additive manufactured components such as used in fuel injectors for gas turbine engines.” Spec. 1:5–7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of additive manufacturing comprising: additively forming a workpiece, wherein the workpiece defines an interior passage therethrough with a passage surface, wherein additively forming the workpiece includes additively forming a beam running through the interior passage spaced apart from the passage surface; and surface treating the passage surface using abrasive flow machining wherein an abrasive flow machining fluid is forced to flow between the beam and the passage surface, wherein forming a beam running through the interior passage includes additively manufacturing the beam and workpiece with bridge structures suspending the beam in the interior passage, further comprising releasing the beam from the workpiece after surf ace treating by removing the bridge structures for removal of the beam from the interior passage. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 13). REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Kenda US 2016/0082565 A1 Mar. 24, 2016 Halliday US 2016/0229127 A1 Aug. 11, 2016 Harris US 2016/0252200 A1 Sep. 1, 2016 Appeal 2020-000627 Application 14/860,797 3 REJECTION Claims 1 and 5–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Halliday and Kenda. Final Act. 3. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 5–12 103 Harris, Halliday, Kenda OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (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 having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified, and we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claim 12 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because “none of the references discloses an interior beam running along the interior passage, and the bridges supporting the beam, with the beam spaced apart from the interior passage, during the surface treatment process.” Appeal Br. 10. The test of obviousness, however, is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken 2 Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1 and 5–12 as a group with claim 1 being the representative claim. See Appeal Br. 8–12. These claims stand or fall together. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-000627 Application 14/860,797 4 as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention.” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Appellant’s argument that each reference individually does not disclose the recited limitations is therefore unpersuasive for the argument is not based on what the combined references would have suggested to the person of ordinary skill in the art. “Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant next argues that Halliday does not disclose the recited “beam running through the interior passage” and “bridge structures suspending the beam.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is unsupported by evidence in the record. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Halliday describes product 10 that “is integrally formed with a support 12 which provided support” both of which are “manufactured using a powder bed type additive manufacturing process.” Halliday ¶ 33. The Examiner accordingly finds that Halliday product 10 teaches or suggests the recited beam whereas Halliday support 12 teaches or suggest the recited “bridge structures.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 8. Appellant does not dispute these findings. See Appeal Br. 10. Nor does Appellant structurally distinguish the prior art structures from those recited. See id. Appellant in fact acknowledges that “Halliday discloses a method for additive manufacture that includes a plurality of weak support beams . . . [that] are designed to be broken after the build [i.e., product] is finished.” Id. at 9; see Final Act. 4 (explaining that the support structure known as “beams” in Halliday teaches or suggests the recited “bridge structures” whereas the product in Halliday teaches or suggests the recited “beam”); see also Appeal 2020-000627 Application 14/860,797 5 Advisory Action of February 15, 2019 (explaining the same). No error has therefore been identified in this aspect of the obviousness analysis. Appellant’s argument that “[n]either Harris nor Kenda disclose the internal beam, and thus cannot disclose the method of surface treatment using abrasive fluid and releasing the beam by removing the bridges after cleaning” (Appeal Br. 11) is unpersuasive again because it attacks the references individually. More specifically, Appellant acknowledges that “Harris discloses a method for additive manufacture that creates a conduit or internal cavity” and that Halliday discloses an additive manufacturing process for a product. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner’s finding that the product in Halliday teaches or suggests the recited beam. Compare id, with Final Act. 4. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rationale to combine Harris with Halliday for the teaching of the recited “beam running through the interior passage.” Compare Appeal Br. 10–11, with Final Act. 4 (explaining that a skilled artisan would have combined the references “in order to produce a beam running through the middle of the passage that can be used as an aid for polishing/cleaning the surfaces of the sintered/produced part”). No reversible error has therefore been identified here. Appellant lastly argues that “the support bridges recited in claim 1, must be strong enough to remain attached to the internal beam and the inner walls of the internal cavity during the extrusion of the abrasive fluid, but capable of removal once the cleaning has been completed.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that “the support bridges as disclosed in Halliday would not survive the cleaning method as disclosed by either Kenda or Applicant.” Appeal 2020-000627 Application 14/860,797 6 Id.3 Appellant, however, does not present evidence in support of the argument. Id. Appellant’s argument is also unsupported by the record. Specifically, Halliday discloses the removal of “untreated powder . . . by the use of a suitable blasting or cleaning technique” and that “it may be possible to arrange for a load applied to the support part 12b [part of support 16] to sequentially break the bonds between the support part 12b and the product 10 for subsequent removal from the product 10. Halliday ¶¶ 34, 41. In any event, as the Examiner points out in the Advisory Action of February 15, 2019, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not based on the claim language which does not require a particular strength parameter. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the record and Appellant’s argument does not identify error therein. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. 3 Appellant asserts that “the Examiner states that Halliday’s lattice bridges can be made stronger to support the workpiece during cleaning by blasting.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Advisory Action of February 15, 2019, pg. 2). We note that this does not accurately reflect the Examiner’s statement which is that Halliday paragraph 39 provides that “the parts can be arranged in such a manner for (improved) cleaning of powder by blasting, and not simply for removal of the support structures (‘beams’) as argued by Applicant has to be the case.” Advisory Action of February 15, 2019, 2. Appeal 2020-000627 Application 14/860,797 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–12 103 Harris, Halliday, Kenda 1, 5–12 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