Ex Parte Herzog et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 11, 2012

10415195 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

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. 10/415,195 11/13/2003 Frank Herzog 11318.0080USWO 5437 23552 7590 12/12/2012 MERCHANT & GOULD PC P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3721 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/12/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte FRANK HERZOG and KERSTIN HERZOG ____________________ Appeal 2010-007001 Application 10/415,195 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: NEAL E. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007001 Application 10/415,195 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 46, 48, 50-53 and 55-78. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a device for sintering, removing material and/or labeling by means of electromagnetically bundled radiation and method for operating the device. Claim 46, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 46. A laser sintering and/or a laser surface-processing device for sintering, removing material and/or labeling on a workpiece by electromagnetically bundled radiation with stereolithographic methods, the device comprising: a housing defining a plurality of construction spaces, at least one scanner positioned in the construction spaces, a laser-light source, wherein a beam of the laser-light source is guided through the at least one scanner onto a surface of the workpiece or a material layer to be sintered; a vertically-displaceable workpiece platform in the construction spaces, a material supply device comprising a coater for supplying sintering material in powder, paste, or liquid form from a supply container into a process area above the workpiece platform; a scanner support having a motor drive and supporting the at least one scanner, wherein the scanner support is slidably movable to move the at least one scanner through the plurality of construction spaces above the workpiece by the motor drive; wherein the scanner support is arranged above the workpiece platform in a vertically-displaceable manner; a control computer connected to and controlling the motor drive during a construction process for the movement of the at least one scanner above the workpiece platform; wherein Appeal 2010-007001 Application 10/415,195 3 in construction zones at edge regions of the workpiece, the scanner deflects the laser beam with small angles relative to a vertical axis; wherein the control computer is configured for separate control of motor drive elements of the cross-slide arrangement and of a scanner mirror; and wherein the light source comprises a sintering laser fixed to a machine frame connected to a cross-slide arrangement. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ackerman Hofmann Keicher US 4,540,867 US 6,554,600 B1 US 6,811,744 B2 Sep. 10, 1985 Apr. 29, 2003 Nov. 2, 2004 REJECTION Claims 46, 48, 50-53 and 55-78 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keicher, Hofmann and Ackerman. Ans. 3. OPINION Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 46 is in error. As the remaining claims are not separately argued, the rejection of claims 48, 50-53 and 55-78 will stand or fall with the rejection of independent claim 46. In particular, Appellants assert that the movement of a movable scanner and scanner support is patentably distinct from the movement of a mirror. App. Br. 9-10. The Examiner does not appear to dispute this characterization. Keicher, which describes a movable laser head 11, 480 with a mirror 438, is said to lack a laser scanner motor. Ans. 4, first full paragraph. The Examiner correctly found that Ackerman describes a laser Appeal 2010-007001 Application 10/415,195 4 beam scanned by an oscillating (moving) mirror and concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the motor-driven scanner in the Keicher system. Ans. 5. While the Examiner has somewhat inartfully described the movement of the scanner and the movement of the mirror as “the same or [functionally] equivalent” (Ans. 6), this is not seen as a statement that the mirror of Keicher alone is the separately movable scanner mirror. We agree that Keicher alone does not show “separate control of motor drive elements of the cross-slide arrangement and of a scanner mirror” as required by claim 46, but this does not directly relate to what is shown by the combination of Keicher, Hofmann and Ackerman in the rejection of claim 46. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant argues that claim 46 requires elements in addition to the movable scanner mirror. App. Br. 10-11. To the extent that Appellants are specifically arguing the elements1 in the second to last limitation of claim 46, the Examiner has correctly identified the description of these limitations in the combined teachings of Keicher, Hofmann and Ackerman. Keicher shows a computer control 129, 129a for the entire deposition process. Ans. 4 and Keicher, col 17, ll. 1-2. Keicher shows movement of a laser head 11 above a work platform at 16. Ans. 3-4. Hofmann shows vertical adjustment of a work platform 70 under a sintering laser with a 1 Where an Appellants’ remarks do not point to any specific language within the claims to distinguish over the prior art, those remarks amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention. Such allegations will not be considered an argument for separate patentability. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2010-007001 Application 10/415,195 5 scanner 5. Ans. 4. Ackerman shows a scanner with an oscillating mirror at column 4, lines 30-31. Ans. 4. The scanner of Ackerman deflects the beam over relatively small angles as shown in Figure 4a. The proposed combination, where the scanner of Ackerman is used as the laser of Keicher with the height adjustment mechanism of Hofmann, therefore falls within the scope of claim 46 as the claim does not limit the type of movement of the mirror or, being directed to an apparatus, require actual performance of the particular steps of the process of the head moving through various construction spaces. With regard to the general argument that there is no motivation to combine the references (App. Br. 11), the Examiner has identified ease of operation as a reason to combine the references. Ans. 5, 7. We understand this to refer to the operation is described at, for example, column 1, lines 6- 27 of Ackermann. These expected benefits, which are readily apparent in the objectives of Ackermann, include efficient utilization of a laser beam and uniform distribution of laser power for localized zone melting, a function also required for Keicher’s sintering. See Ackermann column 1, lines 9-17; Keicher column 2, lines 28-29. Appellants’ general assertion that there is no motivation is therefore unpersuasive. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 46, 48, 50-53 and 55-78 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-007001 Application 10/415,195 6 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 hh