UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE … · Wohlers Report 2012, 2013—Additive Manufacturing...

Filed: November 21, 2014

Filed on behalf of Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a Afinia

By: William J. [email protected] M. [email protected] Colburn LLP20 Church Street, 22nd FloorHartford, Connecticut 06103Telephone: (860) 286-2929Facsimile: (860) 286-0115

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

MICROBOARDS TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a AFINIA,Petitioner,

v.

STRATASYS INC.,Patent Owner.

Case No.: IPR2015-XXXXX

DECLARATION OF THOMAS A. CAMPBELL, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OFPETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,349,239

“SEAM CONCEALMENT FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELS”

MICROBOARDS - EXHIBIT 1003 MB001

-i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 1

II. SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................ 9

III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME ....................... 10

IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘239 PATENT ......................................................... 11

V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 16

1. A Contour Tool Path ....................................................................... 18

2. An Interior Raster Path .................................................................... 19

3. An Interior Region Of A Layer Of The Three-DimensionalModel .............................................................................................. 19

4. A Step-Over Arrangement Between The Start PointAnd The Stop Point ......................................................................... 19

5. Oriented At A Non-Right Angle ...................................................... 20

VI. CERTAIN REFERENCES DISCLOSE ALL FEATURES INCLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, AND 18 OF THE ‘239 PATENT .................. 21

A. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are Anticipated Under§ 102 (b) by Kao, J., “Process Planning for Additive/SubtractiveSolid Freeform Fabrication Using Medial Axis Transform,” Stanford University Dissertation, June, 1999 (“Kao”)(Exh. 1005) .......................................................................................... 21

B. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are ObviousUnder § 103 Under Kao in View of Alexander (Exh. 1008) ................. 38


-ii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)

C. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are ObviousUnder Kao in View Ruan, J. et al. “2-D DepositionPattern and Strategy Study on Rapid Manufacturing,”Paper No. DETC2006-99326, ASME 2006 (Exh. 1007) ....................... 44

D. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are ObviousUnder Kao in View “Deposition Strategies and Resulting PartStiffness in Fused Deposition Modeling,” Journal ofManufacturing Science and Engineering, February 1999,Vol. 121, pp. 93-103 “Kulkarni, et al.” (Exh. 1006) ............................. 52

E. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are Rendered ObviousUnder Jang, et al. (Exh. 1009) in view of Kulkarni, et al.(Exh. 1006) and/or Kao (Exh. 1005)..................................................... 59

VII. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS ................................................................. 63


-1-

I, Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D., declare as follows:

I. QUALIFICATIONS

1. My name is Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D. I am presently Associate

Director for Outreach and Research Associate Professor at the Institute for Critical

Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia,

24061. I am also presently Affiliate Faculty, School of Biomedical Engineering

and Sciences.

2. I hold a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering Sciences and an M.S. in

Aerospace Engineering Sciences from the University of Colorado at Boulder,

Boulder, Colorado; and a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering with Honors from

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.

3. I have been requested to speak to federal agencies, for example, in the

fields of disruptive technologies, 3D printing, nanotechnology. Speeches I have

given include, the National Security Council (White House, Washington, D.C.);

British Embassy (Washington, D.C.); Food & Drug Administration; Council on

Foreign Relations (New York City); Atlantic Council; Pentagon; DARPA; Office

of Secretary of Defense; Office of Naval Research; National Defense University;

US State Department; NASA; NIST; and CIA.

4. I have been called upon by journalists as an expert in 3D and 4D printing.


-2-

Interviews to date in which I participated include: Future Lab; National Public

Radio (NPR); International Business Times; The Economist, Washington Post;

Bloomberg News; National Journal; and Corporate Knights Magazine. I have

also been a participant in filmed interviews by the Science & Technology

Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for a documentary on the use

of Additive Manufacturing processes in prototyping and manufacturing, and the

Institute for Creativity, Arts and Technology (ICAT) of Virginia Tech on

interdisciplinary approaches in research.

5. I am a named co-inventor and/or inventor on the following two (2) issued

patents; six (6) patent applications; eight (8) provisional applications; and eight (8)

invention disclosures related to additive manufacturing:

Patents Issued:

(1) Campbell, T.A.; Henry, K.D. “Carbon nanotube nanometrology

system,” Assignee: ADA Technologies, Inc., U.S. Patent No. 7,564,549 B2, July

21, 2009; and

(2) Rylander, C.; Campbell, T.A.; Wang, Ge; Xu, Y.; Kosoglu, M.A.;

“Fiber Array for Optical Imaging and Therapeutics,” Assignee: Virginia Tech,

U.S. Patent No.: 8,798,722 B2; August 5, 2014.


-3-

Patent Applications:

(1) Rylander, C.; Campbell, T.A.; Wang, Ge; Xu, Y.; Kosoglu, M.A.;

“Fiber Array for Optical Imaging and Therapeutics,” Assignee: Virginia Tech,

International Patent Application No.: WO 2010/099548 A2, filed March 1, 2010;

expired;

(2) Campbell, T.A.; Rylander, M.N.; Dorn, H.C.; “Carbonaceous

Nanomaterials as Imaging and Therapeutic Enhancers,” Assignee: Virginia Tech,

U.S. Patent Application No.: 61/251,349, filed October 14, 2009; expired;

(3) Campbell, T.A., “Carbon nanotube purification and separation

system,” Assignee: ADA Technologies, Inc., United States Patent Application

2008/0069758 A1, filed May 8, 2007;

(4) Foise, J.W., Campbell, T.A., “Annealing method for halide crystal,”

Assignee: Saint-Gobain Crystals, United States Patent Application 2004/0231582

A1, filed November 25, 2004; and

(5) Foise, J.W., Campbell, T.A., “Annealing method for halide crystal,”

Assignee: Saint-Gobain Crystals, WO 2004/079058 A1, International Patent

Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), filed 25 February

2004.


-4-

Provisional Patents:

(1) Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B.; Ivanova, O.S.; Elliott, A.M.;

“Fabrication of Physically Unclonable Functions via Additive Manufacturing,”

U.S. Patent Application No. 61/906,927, filed November 21, 2013; under exclusive

licensing option, 5-21-14 to 5-20-15. Press release noted by Wall Street Journal -

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140630-902965.html;

(2) Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S., “Anti-counterfeiting System for

Textiles,” U.S. Patent Application No: 61/775,762, filed March 11, 2013; expired;

(3) Ivanova, O.S.; Campbell, T.A.; “Synthesis of Quantum Dot

Squares;” U.S. Provisional Patent; U.S. Patent Application No.: 61/548,959;

Assignee: Virginia Tech.; VTIP 12-052, filed October 19, 2011; expired;

(4) Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S.; Williams, C.B.; “Quantum Dot

Optical Temperature and Pressure Probes Embedded in 3D Objects,” U.S.

Provisional Patent; U.S. Patent Application No: 61/538,495; Assignee: Virginia

Tech.; Patent Filing Date: September 23, 2011; expired;

(5) Joseph, E.; Cornelius, C.; Long, T.; Baird, D.; Campbell, T.A.;

“Nano Foam Structures from Multi-Layer Constructions,” U.S. Provisional Patent;

Assignee: Virginia Tech, filed March 30, 2009; expired;


-5-

(6) Rylander, C.; Campbell, T.A.; Xu, Y.; “Nanoneedle for Optical Bio-

imaging and Therapeutics in Subcutaneous Skin;” Assignee: Virginia Tech., U.S.

Provisional Patent, filed May 21, 2008; expired;

(7) Dorn, H; Rylander, M.N.; Campbell, T.A., “Carbonaceous

Nanomaterials for Imaging and Treatment,” Assignee: Virginia Tech, U.S.

Provisional Patent, filed November 27, 2007; expired;

(8) Campbell, T.A., “Carbon Nanotube Nanometrology of Charge

Carrier Dynamics,” Assignee: ADA Assignee: ADA Technologies, Inc., U.S.

Provisional Patent, filed August 8, 2007; expired.

Invention Disclosures:

(1) Campbell, T.A., “Anti-counterfeiting system from nanomaterials-

based radio signals,” Invention Disclosure, VTIP 13-087; Assignee: Virginia

Tech., filed January 11, 2013;

(2) Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S., “Additive Manufacturing with

Ellipsoidal Mirrors,” Invention Disclosure, VTIP 12-133; Assignee: Virginia

Tech., filed April 28, 2012;

(3) Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S.; Williams, C.B., “Smart

Camouflage,” Invention Disclosure VTIP 12-115; Assignee: Virginia Tech., filed

April 4, 2012;


-6-

(4) Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B.; Ivanova, O.S., “Feedback

Monitoring and Control Capability through Nanomaterials for Additive

Manufacturing Processes,” Invention Disclosure VTIP 12-0824; Assignee:

Virginia Tech., filed January 24, 2012;

(5) Ivanova, O.S.; Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B., “Personalized Body

Armor through Additive Manufacturing,” Invention Disclosure VTIP 12-038;

Assignee: Virginia Tech., filed September 14, 2011;

(6) Campbell, T.A., “Internet-enabled Contact Lens,” Invention

Disclosure; Assignee: Virginia Tech., IP Disclosure VTIP 11-122, filed May 12,

2011;

(7) Campbell, T.A.; Sriranganathan, N.; Bose, T., “Pathogen and

Allergen Detection via Mobile Technology,” Invention Disclosure; Assignee:

Virginia Tech., Invention Disclosure VTIP 11-093, filed March 25, 2011; and

(8) Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B., Lu, P., “Programmable Matter via

3D Printing of Nanomaterials,” Invention Disclosure VTIP 11-069; Assignee:

Virginia Tech., filed December 21, 2010.

6. I co-authored a book chapter, entitled “Metrology for Additive

Manufacturing—Opportunities in a Rapidly Emerging Technology,” Advances in

Engineering Research, Volume 7, Nova Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, and

have refereed numerous other publications.


-7-

7. I have attended several conference proceedings and given presentations

on the topic of additive manufacturing, wherein I authored and co-authored

publications for those proceedings. I have organized conferences and workshops

highlighting additive manufacturing (3D Printing), e.g., “Additive Manufacturing

Symposium—Preparing for National Prominence in a Disruptive Technology,”

(August 20, 2012), Truman Room, White House Conference Center and Hamilton

Crowne Plaza, Washington, D.C., which I facilitated with OSTP, DoE, LLNL,

NIST, and Atlantic Council.

8. I am the recipient of the following honors and awards: (1) 2014

Outstanding Paper Award - Olga S. Ivanova, Christopher B. Williams, Thomas A.

Campbell (2013), “Additive Manufacturing (AM) and Nanotechnology: Promises

and Challenges,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, Volume 19, Issue 5, 353-364; (2)

Senior Fellow (Non-resident), Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security,

Strategic Foresight Initiative, Atlantic Council –- 2013 to present; (3) Attendee at

invitation-only Global Trends 2030—A US Strategy for a Changing World,

December 10-11, 2012, Newseum, Washington, D.C.; (4) Two figures of Additive

Manufacturing systems from the Laboratory for Engineered Nano-Systems

(LENS) published with acknowledgement to ICTAS / Virginia Tech in the

Wohlers Report 2012, 2013—Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the

Industry, Annual Worldwide Progress Report; (5) Best Paper Award - “Metrology


-8-

for Additive Manufacturing—Opportunities in a Rapidly Emerging Technology,”

Metromeet 2012 (March 8-9, 2012); 8th

International Conference on Industrial

Dimensional Metrology; Bilbao, Spain; (6) Invited participant for Annual

Academic Reputation Survey to support the World University Rankings, Thomson

Reuters and Times Higher Education, 2011 to present; (7) Member of Board of

Directors of the American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation;

Chair of Strategic Planning Standing Committee and Humboldt Kolleg 2012

Committee, 2010 to present; (8) Cited as a “Key Player” in Frost & Sullivan report

Carbon Nanotubes–Road to Commercialization, 2007; (9) Ambassador Scientist

Abroad and U.S. Humboldtian on Campus, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation,

2007 to 2013; (10) “Rookie of the Year,” ADA Technologies, Inc., 2006; (11)

Design contest winner, North American R&D Orientation Seminar, Saint-Gobain

Corporation, 2004; (12) Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio;

Fundamentals of Management, 2001; (13) Alexander von Humboldt Research

Fellowship, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany, 1997-1999; (14)

NASA Graduate Student Researcher Program Fellowship, Marshall Space Flight

Center, Huntsville, Alabama, 1993-1996; (15) Magna Cum Laude, Honors in

Mechanical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, 1991; (16) Best Technical

Presentation Award, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Regional

Conference, Tampa Bay, Florida, 1990; (17) Mechanical Engineering Honors


-9-

Program, Vanderbilt University, 1990-1991; (18) President, Pi Tau Sigma

Mechanical Engineering Honor Society, Vanderbilt University, 1990-1991; (19)

Sabre Team Captain, Fencing Club, Vanderbilt University, 1989-1990; (20)

Member, Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society, Vanderbilt University, 1990;

(21) Member, Gamma Beta Phi Honor Society, Vanderbilt University, 1990; (22)

Eagle Scout & Order of the Arrow, Boy Scouts of America, 1984; and (23) “Class

A” Caddy, Inverness Club (PGA Championship golf course), Toledo, Ohio, 1983.

9. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto as Appendix B and is

also submitted in support of the Petition as Exhibit 1004.

10. I have not been asked to offer any opinions on patent law in this action,

nor have I testified as an expert in any cases concerning additive manufacturing.

II. SCOPE OF WORK

11. I have been retained by Cantor Colburn LLP, counsel for Microboards

Technology, LLC d/b/a Afinia (“Afinia”) as a technical expert in this matter. I

receive $300.00 per hour for my services. No part of my compensation is

dependent on my opinions or on the outcome of this proceeding.

12. I have been asked by counsel for Afinia to offer an expert opinion on the

validity of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,349,239 (the

“‘239 Patent,” attached as Exhibit 1001). In connection with my analysis, I have

reviewed the ‘239 Patent and its prosecution history. I have also reviewed and


-10-

considered various other documents in arriving at my opinions, and may cite to

them in this Declaration. For convenience, the information referenced in this

Declaration which supports this opinion is listed in Appendix A.

III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME

13. I have been advised that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field”

is a hypothetical person to whom one could assign a routine task with reasonable

confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. I have been advised

that the relevant time frame for assessing validity of the ‘239 Patent is prior to

September 23, 2009. When I refer to September 2009, I am referring specifically

to the time period prior to September 23, 2009.

14. By virtue of my education, experience, and training in academia and

industry, I am familiar with the level of skill in the art of the ‘239 Patent in the

September 2009 time frame. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art in

the field associated with the ‘239 Patent would have been someone with a good

working knowledge of additive manufacturing (layered manufacturing), such as

fused deposition modeling, including but not limited to use of tool paths, such as

contour paths and raster paths, to construct a model. The person would have

gained this knowledge either through an undergraduate education in the sciences or

comparable field, in combination with training or several years of practical

working experience in the additive manufacturing field.


-11-

IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘239 PATENT

15. The ‘239 Patent is entitled “Seam Concealment for Three-Dimensional

Models.” Exh. 1001.

16. The ‘239 Patent claims a method for building a three-dimensional

model with an extrusion-based digital manufacturing system. Such methods

generally involve additive manufacturing, i.e., the creation of an object by layered

manufacturing. Historically, layered manufacturing has also been referred to as

rapid prototyping, free form fabrication, and more recently, 3D printing.

17. Fused deposition modeling is a type of extrusion based digital

manufacturing system in which a 3D model is constructed by extruding a flowable

consumable modeling material through a tip carried by an extrusion head. The

flowable material is deposited as a sequence of roads or paths on a substrate in an

x-y plane. The extruded modeling material fuses to previously deposited modeling

material, and solidifies upon a drop in temperature. The position of the extrusion

head relative to the substrate is then incremented along a z-axis (perpendicular to

the x-y plane) to a new layer, and the process is repeated to form a 3D model based

on the digital representation. Exh. 1001, col. 1, lns. 12-25.

18. The ‘239 Patent is specifically addressed to a contour tool path that

defines an interior region of a layer of the 3D and the manner in which the contour


-12-

path is generated. The contour tool path comprises a start point, a stop point, and a

step-over arrangement between the start point and the stop point. The step-over

arrangement is oriented at a non-right angle and at least one of the start point and

the stop point is located within the interior region of the layer. A step-over

arrangement purports to reduce the surface porosity for the three-dimensional

model (by concealing the seams). Exh. 1001, col. 14, lns. 9-19 (claim 1).

19. The ‘239 Patent further discloses a contour tool path extending from a

start point (and based on a perimeter of a layer of the 3D model) in which the

generated contour tool path defines an interior region of the layer and an interior

raster path extends from the contour tool path. This continuous path, i.e. from a

contour path at the perimeter to an interior raster path, reduces the number of times

the extrusion head must be picked up and moved during the extrusion process.

Exh. 1001, col. 16, lns. 9-24 (claim 15).

20. In contrast to conventional techniques in which the start and stop points

were located on the perimeter, the ‘239 Patent purports to teach that a seam (64)

formed at the perimeter (contour) as shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of Exh. 1001:


-13-

Figures 2 and 3 of the ‘239 Patent

This process provides a continuous road of the deposited modeling

material at all locations around perimeter path 38 except at the

intersection between points 58 and 60, where the outgoing and

incoming roads meet. This intersection forms a seam for layer 36

(referred to as seam 64). As shown, start point 52 and stop point 54

are each located at an offset location from seam 64 within interior

region 50. This is in comparison to start and stop points generated


-14-

under a conventional data generation technique, in which the start and

stop points would typically be collinear with the outer ring of contour

tool path 40 (i.e., at points 58 and 60, respectively). Under the

conventional technique, a contour tool path is typically generated to

match the geometry of the exterior perimeter of a 3D model layer,

with an offset that accounts for the road width (e.g., road width 42).

Thus, the start and stop points would necessarily be located at

locations that are collinear with the contour tool path, and the stop

point would end up being located next to the start point (e.g., at points

58 and 60). Exh. 1001, Col. 6, lines 33 – 52.

21. The ‘239 Patent points to a problem that the location of the start point

and the stop point on the perimeter path might cause bumping, i.e. excess material

at the start and stop point and/or a gap:

Due to variations in the extrusion process when starting and stopping

the depositions, the modeling material deposited at a stop point

corresponding to point 60 may bump into the modeling material

previously deposited at a start point corresponding to point 58. This

bumping can form a significant bulge of the modeling materials at the

seam, which can be visually observed with the naked eye, thereby

detracting from the aesthetic qualities of the resulting 3D model.

Alternatively, if not enough modeling material is deposited between

points 58 and 60, a gap may be formed at the seam, which can

increase the porosity of the 3D model. The increased porosity can

allow gases and fluids to pass into or through the 3D model, which

may be undesirable for many functional purposes (e.g., for containing

liquids). Accordingly, under the conventional data generation


-15-

technique, proper seam sealing may be difficult to achieve,

particularly due to the number of geometric complexities that may be

required for a given 3D model.

Exh. 1001, col. 6, ln. 52 – col. 7, ln. 2.

22. The ‘239 Patent purported to solve this problem by adjusting the

location of the start point and the stop point of the tool path to an interior region of

a layer:

Pursuant to the method of the present disclosure, however, seam 64

may be properly sealed by adjusting the location of the start point

from point 58 to point 52, and by adjusting the location of the stop

point from point 60 to point 54. This allows any variations in the

extrusion process when starting and stopping the depositions to occur

at a location that is within interior region 50 rather than adjacent to

exterior surface 46. Any variations (e.g., bulges) that occur within

interior region 50 are masked by the successive layers of 3D model

26, thereby concealing these effects within the filled body of 3D

model 26 when completed. This allows the dimensions of perimeter

path 38 at seam 64 to be truer to the dimensions of the digital

representation of 3D model 26 and increases the consistency of the

seams of successive layers of 3D model 26.

Exh. 1001, col. 7, lines 3 – 16.


-16-

V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

23. I have been advised that, in the present proceeding, the ‘239 Patent

claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the

specification and that this standard differs from the standard used in district court

patent litigation proceedings. I also understand that, at the same time, absent some

reason to the contrary, claim terms are typically given their ordinary and

accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. I

have followed these principles in my analysis throughout this declaration. I

discuss a few terms below and what I understand as constructions of these terms.

24. Claim 1 states:

1. A method for building a three-dimensional model with an extrusion-

based digital manufacturing system, the method comprising generating a

contour tool path that defines an interior region of a layer of the three-

dimensional model, wherein the contour tool path comprises a start point,

a stop point, and a step-over arrangement between the start point and the

stop point, wherein the step-over arrangement is oriented at a non-right

angle, wherein at least one of the start point and the stop point is located

within the interior region of the layer, and wherein the step-over

arrangement reduces surface porosity for the three-dimensional model.

Exh. 1001, col. 14, lns. 9-19 (Claim 1).


-17-

25. Claim 2 states:

2. The method of claim 1, and further comprising adjusting at least

one of the start point and the stop point from a first coordinate

location to the location within the interior region of the layer.

Id., lns. 2-23.

26. Claim 4 states:

4. A method according to claim 1, wherein the location of the at

least one of the start point and the stop point is offset from a

centerline of a layer perimeter by a distance ranging from greater

than about 50% of a road width used to generate the contour tool

path to about 200% of the road width.

Id., lns. 28-32.

27. Claim 5 states:

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the start point and the stop point

are each located within the interior region of the layer.

Id., lns. 33-35.

28. Claim 7, states:

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the contour tool path between

the start point and the stop point further defines a raster path that at

least partially fills the interior region.

Id., 44-47.

29. Claim 15 states:

15. A method for building a three-dimensional model with an

extrusion-based digital manufacturing system, the method


-18-

comprising: generating a tool path that comprises: a start point for

the tool path; a stop point for the tool path; a contour tool path

extending from the start point and based on a perimeter of a layer

of the three-dimensional model, wherein the generated contour tool

path defines an interior region of the layer; and an interior raster

path extending from the contour tool path within the interior region

of the layer, wherein the interior raster path ends at the stop point;

and extruding a material in a pattern based on the generated tool

path to form the perimeter and at least a portion of the interior of

the layer of the three-dimensional model.

Id., col. 16, lns. 9-24.


17. The method of claim 15, wherein the contour path comprises at

least one step-over arrangement oriented at a non-right angle.

Id., col. 16, lns. 29-31.


18. The method of claim 15, wherein the extruded material consists

essentially of at least one thermoplastic material.

Id., col. 16, lns. 32-33.

32. Construction of the relevant claim terms of the ‘239 patent:

1. A Contour Tool Path

As noted in the specification, “the generation of the tool path(s) for a layer

of 3D model 26 may initially involve generating one or more contour tool paths


-19-

that define the perimeter(s) of 3D model 26 for the given layer. Exh. 1001, col. 5,

lns. 1–4.

Thus, it is my opinion that the broadest reasonable construction for the term

contour tool path is “a tool path that defines a perimeter of a 3D model for the

given layer.” It will be understood that the layer may have more than one

perimeter may also include an internal feature.

2. An Interior Raster Path

As noted in the specification, “based on each generated contour tool path,

computer 12 may then generate one or more additional tool paths (e.g., raster

paths) to fill in the interior region(s) defined by the perimeter(s), as necessary.

Exh. 1001, col. 5, lns. 11- 14.

Thus, it is my opinion the broadest reasonable construction for the term an

interior raster path is “a tool path that is used to fill at a portion of an interior

region defined by a perimeter.”

3. An Interior Region Of A Layer Of The Three-DimensionalModel

An interior region of a layer is “an area defined by a contour path.” Id.

4. A Step-Over Arrangement Between The Start Point AndThe Stop Point

The term step-over is not specifically defined in the specification of the ‘239

Patent. With reference to Figure 15, the specification states:


-20-

Accordingly, during the build operation, controller 30 directs extrusion

head 20 to begin depositing the modeling material at start point 1052,

and to move along contour tool path 1040 in the direction of arrows

1044 until reaching point 1092. This substantially forms perimeter

path 1038a. At this point, while continuing to deposit the modeling

material, extrusion head 20 steps over from perimeter path 1038a to

begin forming perimeter path 1038b at point 1094. Extrusion head 20

then continues to moves along contour tool path 1040 in the direction

of arrows 1090 until reaching stop point 1054. This forms perimeter

path 1038b. As shown, stop point 1054 is adjusted to a location within

interior region 1050. As such, seam 1064 also extends inward within

interior region 1050. This effectively eliminates the formation of

bulges of modeling material at seam 1064. Additionally, the step-over

arrangement also reduces the porosity of 3D model 26 at seam 1064,

thereby reducing or eliminating the transmission of gases and/or

liquids through seam 1064.

Exh. 1001, col. 12, lns. 15 – 35. Thus, it is my opinion the term “a step-over

arrangement between the start point and the stop point” means “the junction where

the tool path moves from a perimeter path to an interior path.”

5. Oriented At A Non-Right Angle

The term “orientated at a non-right angle” is not specifically defined in the

specification, however, as noted below, was added by the applicants to distinguish

Jang, et al. which depicts step-overs that are illustrated with ninety degree angles

(see discussion below). Right angle is understood to mean a ninety degree angle.


-21-

Thus, the broadest reasonable construction for the term “orientated at a non-right

angle” means “the orientation is at an angle that is not ninety degrees.”

VI. CERTAIN REFERENCES DISCLOSE ALL FEATURES IN CLAIMS1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, AND 18 OF THE ‘239 PATENT

A. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are anticipated under § 102 (b)by Kao, J., “Process Planning for Additive/Subtractive SolidFreeform Fabrication Using Medial Axis Transform, StanfordUniversity Dissertation, June, 1999 (“Kao”) (Exh. 1005)

33. Kao is entitled Process Planning for Additive/Subtractive Solid

Freeform Fabrication Using Medial Axis Transform, and was published as a Thesis

Dissertation at Stanford University by Ju-Hsien Kao, June, 1999. Exh. 1005.

Based on the copyright notice of 1999, Kao is, therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. §

102(b) as the effective filing date for the ‘239 Patent is September 23, 2009. Exh.

1005, p. ii.

34. Fused deposition modeling (FDM), the extrusion based modeling

system disclosed in the ‘239 Patent, is specifically referenced by Kao as a form of

SFF manufacturing. Exh. 1005, p. 2.

35. According to Kao, traditional deposition paths, used to fill a 2D region,

generally involve common methods for generating spiral paths that rely on

recursive offset of boundary curves on a 2D deposition region. “Such methods

exhibit inherent drawbacks since gaps may exist if step over distances are not

properly chosen . . .To minimize these problems, we propose a new path generation


-22-

algorithm based on medial axis transform.” Exh. 1005, pp. 8-9.

36. Kao discloses that process planning for additive manufacturing involves

such tasks as, inter alia, determining the build orientation, decomposing the 3D

object into simpler manufacturable 3D entities, planning material addition

operations, selecting material addition/removal methods, and sequencing

operations. Exh. 1005, pp. 12-13. “Common patterns for generating deposition

paths are raster patterns (or zig-zag patterns) - - paths are parallel to a given

direction, and spiral patterns (or contour parallel patterns) - - paths are parallel to

contours of geometry. These two patterns can be altered [27] to minimize warpage

as a result of incremental deposition.” Exh. 1005, p. 25.

37. Importantly, Kao recognized that recursive offsetting in spiral paths

“may result in incomplete filling and that paths generated be disconnected or

contain sharp corners. As a result, voids may exist and materials can be deposited

non-uniformly.” Exh. 1005, pp. 27-28. Kao proposes an approach in which the

Medial Axial Transform (MAT) algorithm is used to compute the medial axis

transform of a 2D compact, rectangular, and connected region bounded by smooth

curves. The boundary can be subdivided into subsets. The outer boundary can be

synchronized with those of the inner loops. Exh. 1005, pp. 72-73. The method can

be extended to generalized curvilinear polygons, to improve the identification of

knots (where the arc reaches zero), or efficient tracing, and faster computation time.


-23-

Exh. 1005, p. 77.

38. Thus, Kao recognized both that: (1) spiral path patterns are often

preferred for producing isotropic deposits and that one of the spiral path generation

techniques is to offset the boundary curves recursively toward its interior; and (2)

that various problems are associated with the recursive offset. Those problems

include the existence of gaps, non-smoothness of paths, and disconnected paths due

to the physical limitations of traversing a path around sharp corners cannot be

accomplished as a constant speed. Exh. 1005, pp. 107-110. To overcome the

deficiencies of the recursive offset approaches, Kao proposed a geometry

manipulation technique in which the geometries of the paths are relaxed and

optimized. Exh. 1005, pp. 110-112.

39. Kao noted that “[o]nce the optimal geometry is generated, the adaptive-

offsetting approach is applied to produce connected spiral deposition paths with

varying step-over distances to produce connected spiral deposition paths with

varying step-over distances. “An ideal geometry should exhibit the following

properties. 1. It should result in the least amount of excess deposits. 2. It should

produce smooth deposition paths with the least amount of sharp turns. 3. It

should yield no disconnected patterns.” Exh. 1005, pp. 116-117 [emphasis

added].

40. Kao discloses several illustrations, based on the medial axis transform.


-24-

These shapes are just a sample of the various paths that may be produced using this

technique to relax the geometry under this method and minimize sharp corners to

reduce porosity/voids. As an example:


-25-

Exh. 1005, p.12.

41. Kao notes that by “slightly modifying the geometry via the proposed

approach, a smooth connected disposition path is produced.” Exh. 1005, p. 124.

Kao also teaches alternative methods such as decomposing the layer into sub-

regions and individually depositing materials in those sub-regions. Id. at 125.

42. Kao summarizes the problem and proposed solution as follows:

In additive/subtractive solid freeform fabrication, parts are iteratively

built and shaped. Each build step requires a number of 2D layers of

material to be deposited. As observed from previous sections,

deposition paths generated by direct recursive offset approaches often

result in piecewise pass segments with sharp comers. As a result,

portion of regions may not be completely filled with materials; voids

or gaps are often present.

In order to overcome this problem, a shape optimization methodology

is employed; smooth spiral deposition paths with varying step-over

distances are computed based on the optimized geometry. Shape

optimization is necessary to streamline the shape, to accommodate

deposition widths, and to remove undesired features such as sharp

comers. Furthermore, paths with varying step-over distances allow the

layer deposited in a seamless spiral pattern.


-26-

Exh. 1005, p. 124.

43. The claim chart below demonstrates that each and every claimed

element is taught by Kao under the claim constructions as proposed above.

44. For purposes of the proposed anticipation rejection over Kao it is

assumed that the “sharp turns” described as problematic in Kao encompass the very

kind of “right angles” shown in Jang and which were overcome during original

prosecution of the ‘239 Patent by the addition of the claim language “oriented at a

non-right angle.” Accordingly, Kao’s express teaching of providing for “the least

amount of sharp turns” in deposition path having varying step over distances would

be understood by a person skilled in the art as a teaching an arrangement wherein

“the step-over arrangement is oriented at a non-right angle.”

45. In addition, for purposes of the proposed anticipation rejection over Kao

it is assumed that the problems of “voids or gaps” described by Kao would be

understood by a person skilled in the art as a problem with the surface porosity of

the 3D model. Accordingly, Kao’s express teaching of how to “overcome this

problem” would be understood by a person skilled in the art as a teaching of a

solution that “reduces surface porosity for the three-dimensional model.”

46. The “spiral path” described by Kao would be understood by a person

skilled in the art as having a start point and a stop point that are radially offset from

each other. Accordingly, Kao’s express teaching of a “spiral path” would be


-27-

understood by a person skilled in the art as a teaching a solution for path

geometries “wherein at least one of the start point and the stop point is located

within the interior region of the layer.”

47. Claim 1 of the ‘239 Patent states:

1. A method of building a three dimensional model with an extrusion-

based digital manufacturing system, the method comprising

generating a contour tool path that defines an interior region of a

layer of the three-dimensional model, wherein the contour tool path

comprises a start point, a stop point, and a step-over arrangement

between the start point and the stop point, wherein the step-over

arrangement is oriented at a non-right angle, wherein at least one of

the start point and the stop point is located within the interior region

of the layer, and wherein the step-over arrangement reduces surface

porosity for the three-dimensional model.

Exh. 1001.

48. Thus, it is my opinion that Kao anticipates claim 1 of the ‘239 Patent

which was amended in prosecution to distinguish Jang, et al. to recite that the

contour tool path comprises a start point and a stop point and a step-over

arrangement oriented at a non-right angle between the start point and the stop

point. Kao teaches that the deposition path should have the least amount of sharp

turns and that it should yield no disconnected patterns. Exh. 1005, pp. 116-117.

Thus, it is my opinion that Claim 1 is anticipated by the Kao reference. For

convenience the following claim chart is referenced below:


-28-

Patent Claims ofThe ‘239 Patent

Anticipation under § 102 (b) by “Kao” (Exh. 1005)

1. A method forbuilding a three-dimensional modelwith an extrusion-based digitalmanufacturingsystem, the methodcomprising

“Solid freeform fabrication (SFF) is a set of manufacturingprocesses that produce complex solid objects directly fromgeometric models without specific part or toolinginformation. A subset of such processes is layeredmanufacturing, also referred to as additive solid freeformfabrication (Figure 1.1). SFF builds up 3D objects bysuccessive 2D layer deposition; objects are sliced into 2Dthin layers, and each layer is built by various deposition orforming processes. Deposition methods may includesolidification of liquid resins with ultraviolet radiation(Stereolithography, SLA), sintering of powders with laserscans (Selective Laser Sintering, SLS), and extrusion ofheated thermoplastic polymers (Fused DepositionModeling, FDM). Subsequent layers are then depositedand bonded onto the previous layers until the finalapproximated 2 1/2 D objects are constructed.” Exh. 1005,p. 2 [emphasis added].

generating a contourtool path thatdefines an interiorregion of a layer ofthe three-dimensional model,

“To overcome problems imposed by offset approaches, ageometry manipulation technique (Figure 6.3) is proposedto accommodate the desired path pattern. In this technique,2D layer shapes are first relaxed (unconstrained) andoptimized such that the generated spiral paths produce noor a minimal number of undesired features such as gaps orpath discontinuities. The optimized geometry, however,must enclose the original layer geometry to ensurecomplete material deposition.” Exh. 1005, pp. 111-112.See also Figure 6.3.

wherein the contourtool path comprisesa start point, a stoppoint, and step-overarrangementbetween the startpoint and the stoppoint,

“The following table shows two different strategies ofgenerating spiral paths: one with constant offset, and theother with varying step-over distances to accommodatenon-uniform “thickness” of the region. The constant-offsetting approach produces the same results as producedby directly offsetting the boundary curves. The latterapproach, the adaptive-offsetting method, is preferred whenwidths of deposits are adjustable throughout the path. Forextrusion based deposition processes, moving thedeposition head at different feed-rates allows different


-29-

widths of deposits.” Exh. 1005, pp. 115 – 116.

“As discussed in previous sections, deposition pathgeneration using direct recursive offsetting approacheswould possibly produce piecewise paths with sharp turns,and consequently, voids or gaps may exist. In order toovercome this difficulty, a geometry manipulation strategyis adopted, and an optimization problem is formulated todetermine such optimal deposition geometry. Once suchoptimal geometry is generated, the adaptive-offsettingapproach is applied to produce connected spiral depositionpaths with varying step-over distances.” Exh. 1005, p. 116.

wherein the step-over arrangement isoriented at a non-right angle,

“An ideal geometry should exhibit the following properties.1. It should result in the least amount of excess deposits. 2.It should produce smooth deposition paths with the leastamount of sharp turns. 3. It should yield nodisconnected patterns.” Exh. 1005, at pp. 116-117[emphasis added].

wherein at least oneof the start point andthe stop point islocated within theinterior region ofthe layer, and

“As observed from previous sections, depositionpaths generated by direct recursive offset approachesoften result in piecewise pass segments with sharpcomers. As a result, portion of regions may not becompletely filled with materials; voids or gaps areoften present. In order to overcome this problem,a shape optimization methodology is employed;smooth spiral deposition paths with varying step-over distances are computed based on the optimizedgeometry.” “As discussed in previous sections,deposition path generation using direct recursiveoffsetting approaches would possibly producepiecewise paths with sharp turns, and consequently,voids or gaps may exist. In order to overcome thisdifficulty, a geometry manipulation strategy isadopted, and an optimization problem is formulatedto determine such optimal deposition geometry.Once such optimal geometry is generated, theadaptive-offsetting approach is applied to produceconnected spiral deposition paths with varying step-


-30-

over distances.” Exh. 1005, p. 116 and 124.

wherein the step-over arrangementreduces surfaceporosity for thethree-dimensionalmodel.


2. The method ofclaim 1, and furthercomprisingadjusting the at leastone of the start pointand the stop pointfrom a firstcoordinate locationto the locationwithin the interiorregion of the layer.


4. The method ofclaim 1, wherein thelocation of the atleast one of the startpoint and the stoppoint is offset froma centerline of alayer perimeter by adistance rangingfrom greater thanabout 50% of a roadwidth used togenerate the contourtool path to about200% of the road

“After the deposition region is optimize, a smoothdisconnected path with varying offset distances isproduced.” Fig. 6.6, Exh. 1005, p. 122:


-31-

width.5. The method ofclaim 1, wherein thestart point and thestop point are eachlocated within theinterior region ofthe layer.

“Another alternative for layer geometry with multi-branchmedial axes is to decompose the layer into sub-regions,each with a single medial axis branch. Each sub-region isoptimized according to the proposed methodology.Materials in the sub-regions are then individuallydeposited. This approach may result in excess deposition atthe medial axis branch points. Therefore, it is onlyconsidered suitable for shapes consisting of multipleelongated branches.” Exh. 1005, p. 125.

7. The method ofclaim 1, wherein thecontour tool pathbetween the startpoint and the stoppoint further definesa raster path that atleast partially fillsthe interior region.

“Common patterns for generating deposition paths areraster patterns (or zig-zag patterns) - - paths are parallel to agiven direction, and spiral patterns (or contour parallelpatterns) - - paths are parallel to contours of geometry.These two patterns can be altered [27] to minimize warpageas a result of incremental deposition.” Exh. 1005, at p. 25.

See Figure 6.1 “Common deposition patterns: rasterpattern (left), and contour-parallel pattern right.” Exh.1005, p. 108.


15. A method forbuilding a three-dimensional modelwith an extrusion-based digitalmanufacturingsystem, the methodcomprising:

“Solid freeform fabrication (SFF) is a set of manufacturingprocesses that produce complex solid objects directly fromgeometric models without specific part or toolinginformation. A subset of such processes is layeredmanufacturing, also referred to as additive solid freeformfabrication (Figure 1.1). SFF builds up 3D objects bysuccessive 2D layer deposition; objects are sliced into 2Dthin layers, and each layer is built by various deposition orforming processes. Deposition methods may includesolidification of liquid resins with ultraviolet radiation


-32-

(Stereolithography, SLA), sintering of powders with laserscans (Selective Laser Sintering, SLS), and extrusion ofheated thermoplastic polymers (Fused DepositionModeling, FDM). Subsequent layers are then depositedand bonded onto the previous layers until the finalapproximated 2 1/2 D objects are constructed.” Exh. 1005,p. 2 [emphasis added].

generating a toolpath that comprises:

“The following table shows two different strategies ofgenerating spiral paths: one with constant offset, and theother with varying step-over distances to accommodatenon-uniform “thickness” of the region. The constant-offsetting approach produces the same results as producedby directly offsetting the boundary curves. The latterapproach, the adaptive-offsetting method, is preferred whenwidths of deposits are adjustable throughout the path. Forextrusion based deposition processes, moving thedeposition head at different feed-rates allows differentwidths of deposits.” Exh. 1005, pp. 115 – 116.


a start point for thetool path;

Id.

a stop point for thetool path;

Id.

a contour tool pathextending from thestart point and basedon a perimeter of alayer of the three-

“The following table shows two different strategies ofgenerating spiral paths: one with constant offset, and theother with varying step-over distances to accommodatenon-uniform “thickness” of the region. The constant-offsetting approach produces the same results as produced


-33-

dimensional model,wherein thegenerated contourtool path defines aninterior region ofthe layer; and

by directly offsetting the boundary curves. The latterapproach, the adaptive-offsetting method, is preferred whenwidths of deposits are adjustable throughout the path. Forextrusion based deposition processes, moving thedeposition head at different feed-rates allows differentwidths of deposits.” Exh. 1005, pp. 115 – 116.


an interior rasterpath extending fromthe contour toolpath within theinterior region ofthe layer, whereinthe interior rasterpath ends at the stoppoint; and

“Common patterns for generating deposition paths areraster patterns (or zig-zag patterns) - - paths are parallel to agiven direction, and spiral patterns (or contour parallelpatterns) - - paths are parallel to contours of geometry.These two patterns can be altered [27] to minimize warpageas a result of incremental deposition.” Exh. 1005, at p. 25.

See Figure 6.1 “Common deposition patterns: rasterpattern (left), and contour-parallel pattern right.” Exh.1005, p. 108.


extruding a materialin a pattern based on

“The following table shows two different strategies ofgenerating spiral paths: one with constant offset, and the


-34-

the generated toolpath to form theperimeter and atleast a portion of theinterior of the layerof the three-dimensional model.

other with varying step-over distances to accommodatenon-uniform “thickness” of the region. The constant-offsetting approach produces the same results as producedby directly offsetting the boundary curves. The latterapproach, the adaptive-offsetting method, is preferred whenwidths of deposits are adjustable throughout the path. Forextrusion based deposition processes, moving thedeposition head at different feed-rates allows differentwidths of deposits.” Exh. 1005, p. 115 – 116.


17. The method ofclaim 15, whereinthe contour pathcomprises at leastone step-overarrangementoriented at a non-right angle.

“An ideal geometry should exhibit the following properties.1. It should result in the least amount of excess deposits. 2.It should produce smooth deposition paths with the leastamount of sharp turns. 3. It should yield nodisconnected patterns.” Exh. 1005, at pp. 116-117[emphasis added].

18. The method ofclaim 15, whereinthe extrudedmaterial consistsessentially of atleast onethermoplasticmaterial.

“Solid freeform fabrication (SFF) is a set of manufacturingprocesses that produce complex solid objects directly fromgeometric models without specific part or toolinginformation. A subset of such processes is layeredmanufacturing, also referred to as additive solid freeformfabrication (Figure 1.1). SFF builds up 3D objects bysuccessive 2D layer deposition; objects are sliced into 2Dthin layers, and each layer is built by various deposition orforming processes. Deposition methods may includesolidification of liquid resins with ultraviolet radiation(Stereolithography, SLA), sintering of powders with laser


-35-

scans (Selective Laser Sintering, SLS), and extrusion ofheated thermoplastic polymers (Fused DepositionModeling, FDM). Subsequent layers are then depositedand bonded onto the previous layers until the finalapproximated 2 1/2 D objects are constructed.” Exh. 1005,p. 2 [emphasis added].

49. Claim 2 adds the feature adjusting the at least one of the start point and

the stop point from a first coordinate location to the location within the interior

region of the layer. The spiral deposition patterns discussed above with radially

offset end points were known in the art. Moreover, Kao teaches that the path be

continuous. Exh. 1005, pp. 116-117. Thus, it is my opinion that claim 2 is

likewise anticipated.

50. Claim 4 adds the feature that “wherein the location of the at least one of

the start point and the stop point is offset from a centerline of a layer perimeter by

a distance ranging from greater than about 50% of a road width used to generate

the contour tool path to about 200% of the road width. Kao specifically teaches

that “[a]fter the deposition region is optimize, a smooth disconnected path with

varying offset distances is produced.” Exh. 1005, p 122. As shown in Figure 6.6,

the offset varies from 50% to 200%. Thus, it is my opinion that claim 4 is

anticipated.

51. Claim 5 adds the feature that wherein the start point and the stop point

are each located within the interior region of the layer. Kao teaches that an


-36-

alternative for layered geometry with multi-branch medial axes is to decompose

the layer into sub-regions, each with a single medial axis branch. Each sub-region

is optimized according to the proposed methodology. Material in each of the sub-

regions is then individually deposited (considered only suitable for shapes with

elongated branches). Exh. 1005, p. 125. Such an arrangement inherently means

there are start and stop points of a contour tool path in an interior region depending

on the geometric optimization and location of the medial axis. Thus, it is my

opinion that claim 5 is anticipated.

52. Claim 7 adds the feature wherein the contour tool path between the start

point and the stop point further defines a raster path that at least partially fills the

interior region. Kao specifically discloses that a raster pattern is a common pattern

and that an object may be broken down into sub-regions which are individually

deposited. Exh. 1005, pp. 25, 108 and 125. It is my opinion that this claim is

invalid for the same reasons as claim as set forth above.


-37-


15. A method of building a three dimensional model with an

extrusion-based digital manufacturing system, the method

comprising generating a tool path that comprises:

a start point for the tool path; a stop point for the tool path; a

contour tool path extending from the start point and based on a

perimeter of a layer of the three-dimensional model, wherein the

generated contour tool path defines an interior region of the layer;

and an interior raster path extending from the contour tool path

within the interior region of the layer, wherein the interior raster

path ends at the stop point; and extruding a material in a pattern

based on the generated tool path to form the perimeter and at least

a portion of the interior of the layer of the three-dimensional

model.

54. As noted above, Kao teaches a continuous tool path that may spiral in

and which is continuous. Exh. 1005, pp. 115-117. This teaches the recited element

of claim 15 requiring “an interior raster path extending from the contour tool path

within the interior region of the layer.” Exh, 1001, claim 15. Kao specifically

discloses that a raster pattern is a common pattern and that an object may be broken

down into sub-regions which are individually deposited. Exh. 1005, pp. 25, 108,

116-117 and 125. Thus, it is my opinion that claim 15 is anticipated.

55. Claim 17, which depends from claim 15, adds the feature the tool path

comprises at least one step-over arrangement oriented at a non-right angle. Thus, it


-38-

is my opinion that Claim 17 is anticipated for the same reasons set for above with

respect to claim 1.

56. Claim 18, which depends from claim 15, adds the limitation “wherein

the extruded material consists essentially of at least one thermoplastic material.”

Kao discloses fused deposition modeling (well known in the art) with a

thermoplastic polymer (Exh. 1005, p. 2). Thus, it is my opinion that claim 18 is

invalid for the same reasons as claim 1.

B. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are Obvious Under § 103Under Kao in View of Alexander (Exh. 1008)

57. United States. Patent No. 6,859,681 to Alexander issued on February 22,

2005 and is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Exh. 1008.

58. Alexander discloses a method of modeling multiple material parts for

additive manufacturing processes such as direct metal deposition which operates

within the constraints of a single material CAD system. Exh. 1008, abstract.

59. Direct metal deposition (wire based) utilizes tool paths and has many of

the same characteristics of deposition with thermoplastics, such as voids, indexing,

bonding, etc.

60. Alexander relates generally to the layered fabrication of three-

dimensional components and, in particular, to a closed-loop system and method

wherein tool paths are generated for multiple materials using a direct metal

deposition (DMD) process. The method is applicable to the generation of paths for


-39-

2 ½ -D and 3-D geometries by pocket machining with spiral-in, spiral-out, and

arbitrary direction raster tool paths using stock material with and without reflection,

depending upon the geometry. In each case, single- and multi-material files may be

merged one toolpath file, and commands may be embedded for closed- or open-

loop control of the fabrication process. Exh. 1008, col. 2, lns. 36-44.

61. Alexander discloses a method wherein the tool paths may be defined

“by style (spiral in, spiral out, raster), step over and distance from center of tool-

path to edge of surface.” Exh. 1008 at col. 6, lns. 65-67.

A custom post processor was written for I-DEAS software in order to

convert the CL file into a DMD machine readable part program. Some

of the main features of the post processor are recognizing when the

cutting starts and stops which is equivalent to starting and stopping the

deposition in the DMD process. This was achieved by forcing the

CAM package to rapid to a known z-level rapid across in the x-y plane

to above the start point and plunge down to the correct level. These

three rapids are recognized by the post processor and converted to

stopping the deposition moving to the new start point and beginning

deposition. The second major feature is the ability to reverse the

ordering of z-levels. This was achieved by reflecting the part in the x-y

plane and machining in an increasingly negative direction. The post

processor then negates all the z values in the post-processed file

converting them from negative to positive. This creates z-levels that

are increasing positive.

For 2½D parts (i.e. the geometry contains no overhanging features),


-40-

the pocket can be defined such that it describes the geometry to be

built with the additive process.

Exh. 1008, col. 6, ln. 36-56.

62. Alexander further teaches that the tool path with start and stop points

that may spiral in, spiral out, comprise an arbitrary raster direction path or a

combination thereof. See Claims 1, 3, and 6, for example. Exh. 1008.

63. As noted above, Kao teaches “an ideal geometry should exhibit the

following properties. 1. It should result in the least amount of excess deposits. 2.

It should produce smooth deposition paths with the least amount of sharp

turns. 3. It should yield no disconnected patterns.” Exh. 1005, at pp. 116-117

[emphasis added]. Alexander teaches the tool path may spiral-in, spiral-out,

comprise an arbitrary direction raster tool path and a combination thereof. See Exh.

1008, col. 2, lns. 36-44; col. 6, ln. 36-col. 7, line 4; and Claims 1, 3, and 6.

64. In view of the above, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to

combine the teaching of Kao with Alexander to include a step-over arrangement

that is oriented at a non-right angle. Kao is specifically teaching that sharp turns be

reduced. Alexander demonstrates available patterns include both spiral-in, spiral-

out, comprise an arbitrary direction raster tool path, and a combination thereof.

One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any of these patterns taught by

Alexander could be used for seam concealment and porosity reduction consistent

with the techniques taught by Kao to render claim 1 obvious.


-41-



region of the layer. The spiral deposition patterns discussed above were known in

the art. Moreover, Kao teaches that the path be continuous and discloses that the

spiral pattern may spiral in. Exh. 1005, p.116. Alexander discloses that the pattern

may comprise a spiral in, spiral out, an arbitrary raster pattern or a combination

thereof. See Exh. 1008, col. 2, lns. 36-44; col. 6, ln. 36-col. 7, line 4; and Claims 1,

3, and 6. In view of the above, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to

combine the teaching of Kao with Alexander to include adjusting the at least one of

the start point and the stop point from a first coordinate location to the location

within the interior region of the layer as variations of the spiral pattern tool path for

the specific problem Kao was attempting to solve was the reduction of sharp

corners and breaks in the deposition path to reduce voids.


the start point and the stop point is offset from a centerline of a layer perimeter by a

distance ranging from greater than about 50% of a road width used to generate the

contour tool path to about 200% of the road width. Kao specifically teaches that

“[a]fter the deposition region is optimize, a smooth disconnected path with varying

offset distances is produced.” As shown in Figure 6.6, the offset varies from 50%

to 200%. Exh. 1005, p. 122. Alexander discloses that the pattern may comprise a


-42-

spiral in, spiral out, an arbitrary raster pattern or a combination thereof. See Exh.

1008, col. 2, lns. 36-44; col. 6, ln. 36-col. 7, line 4; and Claims 1, 3, and 6. In view

of the above, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to combine the

teaching of Kao with Alexander as variations of the spiral pattern tool path to

include an offset from the centerline greater than about 50% to 200% as Kao

recognized varying the offset as a means to reduce sharp corners. Thus, claim 4 is

obvious.



alternative for layered geometry with multi-branch medial axes is to decompose the

layer into sub-regions, each with a single medial axis branch. Each sub-region is

optimized according to the proposed methodology. Material in each of the sub-


elongated branches). Exh. 1005, p. 125. Alexander discloses that the pattern may

comprise a spiral in, spiral out, an arbitrary raster pattern or a combination thereof.

See Exh. 1008, col. 2, lns. 36-44; col. 6, ln. 36-col. 7, line 4; and Claims 1, 3, and 6.

In view of the above, it is my opinion that it would be obvious to combine the

teaching of varying the layer into sub-regions of Kao with the patterns of Alexander

as variations of the spiral pattern tool path to achieve a deposition pattern having

the start point and the stop point each located within the interior region of the layer


-43-

to conceal seams.



interior region. This claim is invalid for the same reasons as claim as set forth

above. Exh. 1003, ¶ 68.

69. As noted above, claim 15 includes the feature that the raster path

extends from the contour path. Kao teaches a continuous tool path that may spiral

in and which is continuous. Exh. 1005, pp. 115-117. This teaches the recited

element of claim 15 requiring “an interior raster path extending from the contour

tool path within the interior region of the layer.” Exh, 1001, claim 15. Kao

specifically discloses that a raster pattern is a common pattern and that an object

may be broken down into sub-regions which are individually deposited. Exh. 1005,

pp. 115-117, for example. Alexander discloses that the pattern may comprise a

spiral in, spiral out, an arbitrary raster pattern or a combination thereof. See Exh.

1008, col. 2, lns. 36-44; col. 6, ln. 36-col. 7, line 4; and Claims 1, 3, and 6. It is my

opinion that it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Kao with Alexander to

achieve a deposition pattern having the raster path extending from the contour path

as Alexander teaches such combinations and Kao teaches that an alternative

geometry may be employed with material being deposited in separate regions.

Exhs. 1005 and 1008.


-44-


comprises at least one step-over arrangement oriented at a non-right angle. Claim

17 is obvious for the same reasons set for above with respect to claim 1.




thermoplastic polymer (Exh. 1005, p. 2). Thus, it is my opinion that claim 18 is

invalid for the same reasons as claim 1.

C. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are Obvious Under Kao in ViewRuan, J. et al. “2-D Deposition Pattern and Strategy Study on RapidManufacturing,” Paper No. DETC2006-99326, ASME 2006 (Exh.1007)

72. Ruan, J., et al., is an article entitled “2-D Deposition Pattern and

Strategy Study on Rapid Manufacturing,” published as part of the proceedings of

IDETC/CIE 2006, Paper No. DETC2006-99326, ASME 2006 International Design

Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering

Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, September 10-13, 2006, pp. 967-

973 (“Ruan, et al.”), and is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Exh. 1007.

73. Ruan, et al. discloses a deposition pattern and strategy for rapid

manufacturing. The article specifically references fused deposition modeling,

though it is primarily concerned with metal rapid prototyping systems. This paper

presents the study of the effect of 2-D deposition patterns on the geometry of


-45-

deposition results. The results of different deposition patterns on a basic “cell” are

analyzed to establish a suitable strategy for each type of “cell.” As noted, a regular

2-D shape can be decomposed into several “cell” similar shapes and the associated

deposition strategies can be applied to each “cell” to obtain a better geometry result.

Exh. 1007, p. 1.

74. As shown in Figure 1 of Ruan, et al., a, spiral like pattern may be such

that it spirals from the interior position to the exterior position to form a continuous

path:

Exh. 1007, p. 2.

75. As noted in Ruan et al., in an offset pattern, offset segments of the

geometry boundaries are generated and used as a guide for the nozzle to move

along. By tracing the offset paths, residual stress “could be relieved before tracing

the next adjacent edges. Therefore, stress-induced warping is reduced. This pattern


-46-

includes pair-wise offset, pixel-based offset, Voronoi approaches and spiral-like

offset. However, these approaches usually have some problems such as detecting

the intersection of offset edges and removing invalid loops [8, - 10] and being

computationally intensive [11] and numerically stable [12, 13]. Based on the work

performed by Kao and Prinz [7], spiral offset paths are typically preferred for

producing isotropic deposits.” Exh. 1007, p. 2.

76. Ruan et al. notes several conclusions can be drawn:

• Zigzag pattern usually yields better results when depositing

triangles and rectangles without sharp angles and short edges.

• Spiral pattern deposition provides better contour control when

depositing sharp angle triangles.

• Spiral pattern deposition can be used to finish "thin wall"

structures.

• Spiral pattern deposition takes less time to finish due to the shorter

tool path covering the area.

Based on these observations, an arbitrary 2-D shape is decomposed

into triangles or rectangles "cell" and the suitable deposition patterns

are applied to the "cell" to “finish the process.”

Exh. 1007, p. 3.


-47-

77. In Figure 8, Ruan, et al. discloses multiple diagonal connections. Id. at

p. 4. Ruan, et al. further teaches the decomposition of the 2D shape into several

convex polygons and applying hybrid patterns of spirals and zig-zag patterns:

The algorithm is summarized in Figure 9 and two examples are found

in Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively. In Figure 10, a simple polygon

is deposited with three different strategies. Figure a, b shows the

deposition result by spiral and zigzag, respectively. The polygon

decomposition and its deposition result are shown in Figure c. The


-48-

measured data shows that the decomposition method yields the best

result while other two methods produce "hump''. The spiral pattern

decomposition in Figure 11 also demonstrates that the unmelt powder

in previous track are added on the neighboring tracks which leads to a

big "hump" as the deposition process goes toward the center, illustrated

in Figure 11 (c). The triangles in the Figure 11 (b) are deposited with

spiral pattern according to the rules in table 3. Table 4 lists the time to

deposit each layer. Table 5 lists the time for one-layer deposition using

the spiral and hybrid pattern. Although the hybrid pattern takes 8%

more time than the spiral pattern, it is still worthy considering the

quality.

Exh. 1007, p. 6.




turns. 3. It should yield no disconnected patterns.” Exh. 1005, pp. 116-117

[emphasis added]. Ruan, et al. teaches using hybrid approaches of spirals (that may

spiral out or in) and specifically, that zig-zag spiral patterns are particularly suited

when contours have sharp edges. Exh. 1007, pp. 3 and 6.

79. In view of the above, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious to

combine the teaching of Kao with Ruan, et al. to include a step-over arrangement

that is oriented at a non-right angle. Thus, claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §

103, which was amended during prosecution to include the limitation “wherein the


-49-

step-over arrangement is oriented at a non-right angle” to distinguish from Jang, et

al.





spiral pattern may spiral in. Exh. 1005, p. 116. Ruan, et al. discloses that the

pattern may spiral out. Exh. 1007, p. 2. In view of the above, it is my opinion that

it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Kao with Ruan et al. to

include adjusting at least one of the start point and the stop point from a first

coordinate location to the location within the interior region of the layer.


the start point and the stop point is offset from a centerline of a layer perimeter by a

distance ranging from greater than about 50% of a road width used to generate the

contour tool path to about 200% of the road width.” Kao specifically teaches that

“[a]fter the deposition region is optimize, a smooth disconnected path with varying

offset distances is produced.” Exh. 1005, p. 122. As shown in Figure 6.6, the

offset varies from 50% to 200%. Ruan, et al. teaches using spiral, zig-zags and

hybrid patterns. Ruan, et al. notes that spirals are particularly suited when contours

have sharp edges. Ruan, et al. pp. 3, 6. In view of the above, it is my opinion that


-50-

it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Kao with Ruan, et al., Exh.

1007, to include an offset from the centerline greater than about 50% to 200%.

Thus, it is my opinion that claim 4 is obvious.



alternative for layered geometry with multi-branch medial axes is to decompose the

layer into sub-regions, each with a single medial axis branch. Each sub-region is

optimized according to the proposed methodology. Material in each of the sub-


elongated branches). Exh. 1005 at p. 125. Ruan, et al. further teaches the

decomposition of the 2D shape into several convex polygons and applying hybrid

patterns of spirals and zig-zag patterns. Exh. 1006, pp. 4-6. Ruan, et al. teaches

using spiral, zig-zags and hybrid patterns. Ruan, et al. notes that spirals are

particularly suited when contours have sharp edges. Ruan, et al., pp. 3, 6. It is my

opinion that it would be obvious to combine the teaching of varying the layer into

sub-regions of Kao with the hybrid patterns of Ruan, et al. to achieve a deposition

pattern having the start point and the stop point each located within the interior

region of the layer.




-51-

interior region. This claim is invalid for the same reasons as claim as set forth

above.

84. As noted above, claim 15 adds the feature that the raster path extends

from the contour path. Kao teaches a continuous tool path that may spiral in and

which is continuous. Exh. 1005, pp. 115-117. This teaches the recited element of

claim 15, requiring “an interior raster path extending from the contour tool path

within the interior region of the layer.” Exh. 1001, claim 15. Ruan, et al. discloses

that the pattern may spiral out. Exh. 1007, p. 2. Ruan, et al. further teaches the

decomposition of the 2D shape into several convex polygons and applying hybrid

patterns of spirals and zig-zag patterns. Ruan, et al. notes that spirals are

particularly suited when contours have sharp edges. Ruan, et al., Exh. 1007, pp. 3,

6. It is my opinion that it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Kao with

Ruan, et al. to achieve a deposition pattern having the raster path extending from

the contour path.








-52-

thermoplastic polymer (Exh. 1005, p. 2). Thus, claim 18 is invalid for the same

reasons as claim 1.

D. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17 and 18 are Obvious Under Kao in Viewof “Deposition Strategies and Resulting Part Stiffness in FusedDeposition Modeling,” Journal of Manufacturing Science andEngineering by P. Kulkarni and D. Dutta of the Department ofMechanical Engineering February 199, Vol. 121, pp. 93-103“Kulkarni, et al.” (Exh. 1006)

87. Kulkarni, et al. is an article entitled “Deposition Strategies and

Resulting Part Stiffness in Fused Deposition Modeling,” Journal of Manufacturing

Science and Engineering, by P. Kulkarni and D. Dutta of the Department of

Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Michigan that was

published February 1999, Vol. 121, pp. 93-103 (“Kulkarni, et al.”), and is therefore

prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Exh. 1006.

88. In relevant part, Kulkarni contrasts standard contour and raster paths

(Fig. 2 (a) and (b), below) with their modified paths (Fig. 5 (a), (b) and (c), which

show spiral paths).

Exh. 1006, at pp. 96-97.


-53-

89. Kulkarni, et al. describes disadvantages of standard contour and raster

paths. For example, with regard to contour paths, the article states, “…the nozzle

cannot deposit all of the material in one single motion – it has to be indexed and

properly positioned to start and finish each contour path…” Also, while this

reference teaches that raster paths can be laid in one single motion of the nozzle,

raster paths can suffer from inaccuracies in the deposition, e.g., voids from the

deposition process, as is shown in Fig. 3, below:

Exh. 1006, p. 95.

90. This article teaches modification of traditional paths to allow for one

single uninterrupted deposition. Fig. 6, below, shows an exemplary generation of a

spiral deposition path from a contour, with replacing of segments AB with BC,

etc.:


-54-

This is characterized (Exh. 1006, p. 96) as “…joining together the multiple

components of the contour path into a single spiral…” The article further states,

“The spiral deposition path constitutes one single path…eliminating multiple

paths…[and] elimination of indexing of the nozzle to start a fresh contour.”

91. Thus, this article, which was published ten years prior to the filing date

of the ‘239 Patent, teaches modification of plural paths to provide a single path,

with elimination of the need to index the nozzle to start a fresh contour. Further,

such a spiral path (as in Fig. 5(a), above) would both eliminate the right angles

from the closest cited art during prosecution (Fig. 7 from U.S. Patent Publication

No. 2003/0236588 to Jang), and at the same time provide a seam crossover where

the outer boundary transitions into the spiral interior.

92. Kulkarni discloses that voids are generated with coupling of acute and

obtuse angles (non-right angles) in raster paths. Thus step-over is at something

other than a right angle and was known in the art:


-55-

Exh. 1006, p. 98.

93. A problem Kulkarni, et al. was attempting to solve was the relationship

between raster angle in stacked up layers in the production of voids and the

relationship of the deposition pattern to stiffness. Exh. 1006, pp. 99-101.

Kulkarni, et al. determined that varying the angle of the rasters in the stacked

layers produced different results in terms of voids and stiffness. Kulkarni, et al.

determined that in stacked layers raster paths with ninety degrees exhibited fewer

voids on the one hand, but that different angles resulted in different stiffness

properties on the other. Kulkarni, et al. concluded that a spiral path was much

faster than all of other paths since the indexing of the nozzle to start multiple

contours was eliminated. Exh. 1006, pp. 100-102.





-56-

turns. 3. It should yield no disconnected patterns.” Exh. 1005, at pp. 116-117

[emphasis added]. Kulkarni, et al. determined that varying the angle of the rasters

in the stacked layers produced different results in terms of voids and stiffness.

Kulkarni, et al. taught that the use of raster at acute and obtuse angles was known.

Kulkarni, et al. determined that in stacked layers raster paths with ninety degrees

exhibited fewer voids on the one hand, but that different angles resulted in

different stiffness properties on the other. Kulkarni, et al. concluded that a spiral

path was much faster than all of other paths since the indexing of the nozzle to start

multiple contours was eliminated. Exh. 1006, pp. 98 and 100-102.

95. In view of the above, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious

to combine the teaching of Kao with Kulkarni et al. to include a step-over

arrangement that is oriented at a non-right angle. Thus, claim 1 is obvious under

35 U.S.C. § 103, which was amended during prosecution to include the limitation

“wherein the step-over arrangement is oriented at a non-right angle” to distinguish

Jang, et al. The angle would be varied to achieve an acceptable amount of voids

and stiffness to satisfy the limitation that “wherein the step-over arrangement

reduces surface porosity for the three-dimensional model.”





-57-


spiral pattern may spiral in. Exh. 1005, p. 108. Kulkarni, et al. discloses that the

pattern may spiral. Exh. 1006, p. 101. In view of the above, it is my opinion that it

would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Kao with Kulkarni et al. to

include adjusting the at least one of the start point and the stop point from a first

coordinate location to the location within the interior region of the layer.


the start point and the stop point is offset from a centerline of a layer perimeter by

a distance ranging from greater than about 50% of a road width used to generate

the contour tool path to about 200% of the road width.” Kao specifically teaches

that “[a]fter the deposition region is optimize, a smooth disconnected path with

varying offset distances is produced.” Exh. 1005, p. 122. As shown in Figure 6.6,

the offset varies from 50% to 200%. Kulkarni, et al. discloses that the pattern may

spiral. Exh. 1006, p. 101.

98. In view of the above, it would have been obvious to combine the

teaching of Kao with Kulkarni, et al. to include an offset from the centerline

greater than about 50% to 200%. Thus, it is my opinion that claim 4 is obvious.



alternative for layered geometry with multi-branch medial axes is to decompose


-58-

the layer into sub-regions, each with a single medial axis branch. Each sub-region

is optimized according to the proposed methodology. Material in each of the sub-


elongated branches). Exh. 1005 at p. 125. Kulkarni, et al. discloses varying the

amount of material as the nozzle negotiates an interior turn (Exh. 1006, p. 94) and

that spiral patterns can be applied from circular domains to rectangular domains.

Exh. 1006, p. 98. It is my opinion that it would be obvious to combine the

teaching of varying the layer into sub-regions of Kao with the spiral patterns and

raster angles of Kulkarni, et al. to achieve a deposition pattern having the start

point and the stop point each located within the interior region of the layer.



interior region. This claim is invalid for the same reasons as claim 5 as set forth

above.

101. As noted above, claim 15 adds the feature that the raster path extends

from the contour path. Kao teaches a continuous tool path that may spiral in and

which is continuous. Exh. 1005, pp. 115-117. This teaches the recited element of

claim 15, requiring “an interior raster path extending from the contour tool path

within the interior region of the layer.” Exh. 1001, claim 15. Kulkarni teaches the

tool path may be in the form of a spiral or a zig-zag. Exh. 1006, p. 98. It is my


-59-

opinion that it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Kao with Kulkarni, et

al. to achieve a deposition pattern having the raster path extending from the

contour path.








reasons as claim 1.

E. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 17, and 18 are Rendered Obvious UnderJang, et al. (Exh. 1009) in view of Kulkarni, et al. (Exh. 1006)and/or Kao (Exh. 1005)

104. Jang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2003/0236588) is a published

patent application published more than one year before the effective filing date of

the ‘239 Patent, and is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Exh. 1009.

105. On May 4, 2012, a First Office Action was issued rejecting claims 1-

14. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the ‘239 Patent were rejected in the

original prosecution under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Jang, et al.

The examiner noted that Jang, et al. teaches a process of building a three-


-60-

dimensional model with an extrusion based digital manufacturing system, i.e., a

fused deposition modeling system, including the step of generating a contour tool

path that defines an interior region of a layer of the three dimensional model,

wherein the contour tool path has a start point and a stop point, and wherein at least

one of the start point and the stop point is located with the interior region of the

layer. Exh. 1002, May 4, 2012 Non-Final Rejection, pp. 2-3 (MB042-43).

106. Claims 4, 8, 9 and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being

obvious Jang, et al. The examiner noted that while Jang, et al. did not explicitly

teach the particular offsetting of the start point and the stop points, and maximizing

the amount of interior region filled with a raster path or at least one step over

arrangement between the start point and the stop points, the claimed aspects would

have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Jang, et al. teaches

off-setting the start and stop points and filling the layers with raster paths with

different arrangements between start and stop points. Exh. 1002, May 4, 2012

Non-Final Rejection, p. 4 (MB044).

107. On September 4, 2012, the applicants submitted claim 1 to recite that

the contour tool path comprises a start point and a stop point and a step-over

arrangement oriented at a non-right angle between the start point and the stop

point. Exh. 1002, Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in Amendment, p. 7

(MB026).


-61-

108. Reference is made to the above discussion on other grounds

concerning Kao and Kulkarni, et al. and is incorporated herein by reference. Kao

expressly teaches that the paths should be smooth and not have sharp turns like the

right angles found in Jang, et al. “An ideal geometry should exhibit the following

properties. 1. It should result in the least amount of excess deposits. 2. It should

produce smooth deposition paths with the least amount of sharp turns. 3. It

should yield no disconnected patterns.” Exh. 1005, at pp. 116-117 [emphasis

added].

109. Likewise, Kulkarni, et al. recognized the benefit of using paths with

different angles other than the right angles found in Jang, et al. to solve the

relationship between raster angle in stacked up layers in the production of voids

and the relationship of the deposition pattern to stiffness. Exh. 1006, pp. 99-101.

Kulkarni, et al. determined that varying the angle of the rasters in the stacked

layers produced different results in terms of voids and stiffness. Kulkarni, et al.,

determined that in stacked layers, raster paths with ninety degrees exhibited fewer

voids on the one hand, but that different angles resulted in different stiffness

properties on the other. Kulkarni, et al. concluded that a spiral path was much

faster than all of the other paths since the indexing of the nozzle to start multiple

contours was eliminated. Exh. 1006, pp. 100-102.


-62-

110. In view of the above, it is my opinion that it would have been obvious

to combine the teaching of Jang, et al. (Exh. 1009) with Kulkarni, et al. in view of

the motivations suggested by the problem identified by Kulkarni, et al., or for the

reasons taught by Kao, to include a step-over arrangement that is oriented at a non-

right angle, as each of these secondary references specifically discloses using non-

sharp or non-right angles. Thus, claim 1 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which

was amended during prosecution to include the limitation “wherein the step-over

arrangement is oriented at a non-right angle” to distinguish Jang, et al.

111. Dependent claim 2, 4, 5, and 7 contain no additional claim limitations

other than the claim limitations which were rejected in the original prosecution as

being anticipated by or obvious over Jang, et al., which teaches off-setting the start

and stop points and filling the layers with raster paths with different arrangements

between start and stop points. Exh. 1002, May 4, 2012 Non-Final Rejection, pp. 2-

4 (MB044). In view of the above arguments with respect to independent claim 1, it

is my opinion that dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 are also obvious.

112. As noted above, claim 15 claims the feature that the raster path

extends from the contour path. Kulkarni et al. teaches that the pattern of the tool

path be in the form of a spiral or a zig-zag. Exh. 1006, p. 98. It would be obvious

to combine the teaching of Jang, et al. (Exh. 1009) with Kulkarni et al. to achieve a

deposition pattern having the raster path extending from the contour path.


-63-








reasons as claim 1.

VII. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS

115. I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true,

and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and

that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements

and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under

Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Date: By:Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D.


Appendix A – List of Exhibits

Exhibit No. Description

1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,349,239 to Hopkins, et al.

1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,349,239

1003 Declaration of Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D.

1004 Curriculum Vitae of Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D.

1005 J. Kao, “Process Planning for Additive/Subtractive SolidFreeform Fabrication Using Medial Axis Transform,” AStanford University Dissertation, June 1999

1006 Kulkarni, et al., “Deposition Strategies and Resulting PartStiffnesses in Fused Deposition Modeling, Journal ofManufacturing Science and Engineering, February 1999, Vol. 121,pp. 93-103

1007 Ruan, et al., “2-D Deposition Pattern and Strategy Study on RapidManufacturing,” Proceedings of IDETC/CIE 2006, Paper No.DETC2006-99326, ASME 2006 International Design EngineeringTechnical Conferences & Computers and Information inEngineering Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA,September 10–13, 2006, pp. 967-973

1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,859,681 to Alexander

1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. U.S. 2003/0236588 toJang, et al.

1010 Complaint, Stratasys Inc. v. Microboards Technology, LLC,d/b/a Afinia, Case No. 13-cv-03228 (DWF-JJG) (D. Minn. Nov.25, 2013) [Dkt No. 1]

1011 Summons and Affidavit of Service on Microboards Technology,LLC d/b/a Afinia, November 25, 2013 [Dkt. No. 5]


APPENDIX B

CURRICULUM VITAE OF THOMAS A. CAMPBELL, PH.D.


October 31, 2014 Thomas A. Campbell, Ph.D.

Associate Director for Outreach (http://www.ictas.vt.edu/outreach/), Research Associate Professor Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS), Virginia Tech

Kelly Hall, MC0193, 325 Stanger Street, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Cell: (540) 558-8789; E-mail: [email protected]

Senior Fellow (non-resident), Atlantic Council http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/thomas-a-campbell

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1612794&trk=hb_tab_pro_top Twitter: @T_A_Campbell; Skype: thomas.a.campbell.phd

EDUCATION Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder; Boulder, Colorado, USA; Dissertation: The Influence of Compositional Effects upon InSb Crystal Growth; funded by 3-year NASA Graduate Student Research Program (GSRP) fellowship; Adviser: Prof. Jean Koster

M.S., Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder; Boulder, Colorado, USA; Thesis: An Experimental Investigation of Liquid Metal Flows; Adviser: Prof. Jean Koster B.E., Mechanical Engineering with Honors, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; Honors Thesis: The Ti-W Phase Diagram—Is It Correct?; Adviser: Prof. Taylor G. Wang (NASA astronaut, STS-51B, Challenger); Magna Cum Laude

RESEARCH INTERESTS Future Trends: emerging and disruptive technologies, national security, science & technology policy, interdisciplinary research Advanced Materials: programmable matter (4D printing), additive manufacturing (3D printing), anti-counterfeiting, nanomaterials, metrology, environmental health & safety (EHS) Information and Communications Technology (ICT): Internet of Things (IoT), Social Media, Future of the Internet

CURRENT EMPLOYMENT Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia USA ¾ Associate Director for Outreach, Research Associate Professor; Institute for Critical

Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS) (8/2010-present) ¾ Affiliate Faculty, School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (SBES, 2010 to present)

• Lead corporate outreach and facilitate large, multi-principal investigator (PI) program and proposal developments in interdisciplinary areas, including Internet of things / everything, 3d printing (additive manufacturing), 4d printing (programmable matter), big data, cybersecurity, wireless communications, autonomous vehicles, nanotechnology, bio-nanotechnology, nanomedicine (targeted drug delivery), nanometrology, materials processing, sensors, water, biomedical engineering, environmental health & safety, and mechanical and aerospace engineering

• Facilitate commercialization of faculty research into spin-offs, joint ventures, and licensing


Tom Campbell

2

• Often requested to speak to federal agencies (disruptive technologies, 3d printing, nanotechnology, etc.) – talks given to National Security Council (White House, Washington, D.C.); British Embassy (Washington, D.C.); Food & Drug Administration; Council on Foreign Relations (New York City); Atlantic Council; Pentagon; DARPA; Office of Secretary of Defense; Office of Naval Research; National Defense University; US State Department; NASA; NIST; CIA; etc.

• Organize and facilitate national and international outreach for ICTAS, including establishing an innovation research center on every continent (Asia, Australia, South America, Europe, Africa), and organizing and running major conferences (including Nobel Laureate keynotes)

• Frequently called upon by journalists as an expert in 3d and 4d printing – interviews to date with Future Lab, National Public Radio (NPR), International Business Times, The Economist, Washington Post, Bloomberg News, National Journal, Corporate Knights Magazine; filmed interviews by the Science & Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for a documentary on the use of Additive Manufacturing processes in prototyping and manufacturing, and the Institute for Creativity, Arts and Technology (ICAT) of Virginia Tech on interdisciplinary approaches in research

• Contacts database of more than 2,400 researchers, program managers, and policy makers in federal agencies, universities, national laboratories, and think tanks

PAST TRAINING & EMPLOYMENT Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia USA ¾ Associate Director for Special Projects & Outreach, Research Associate Professor; ICTAS

(1/2010-8/2010); Associate Director for Special Projects, Research Associate Professor; ICTAS (8/2009-1/2010)

• Responsibilities – see above under Current Employment ¾ Assistant Director for Research and Operations, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute

(VTCRI); Program Manager, ICTAS; Research Associate Professor (8/2008-7/2009) • Coordinated requests for proposals (RFPs) within VTCRI for medical research • Led ICTAS efforts in nanotechnology and bio-nanotechnology, including new project and

proposal initiation

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Maryland USA ¾ Contract Guest Researcher, United States Measurement Systems (USMS) Group (12/2007-

9/2009) • Assisted in interviews, research, documentation and presentation of USMS assessments of

measurement needs of nanotechnology environmental health and safety (Nano-EHS)

ADA Technologies, Inc., Littleton, Colorado, USA, 2005-2008 ¾ Senior Research Scientist / Nanotechnology Program Manager (1/2007-8/2008) ¾ Senior Research Scientist, Instrumentations Group (8/2005-12/2006) • Led proposal concept, writing, and project execution of Small Business Innovation Research

(SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) proposals • Developed characterization equipment of carbon nanotubes


Tom Campbell

3

• Developed Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) system for phyto-remediation studies (technique for quantifying absorption of toxic metals in plants)

• Test validation engineer of WeatherPodTM system, a compact meteorological package for the Department of Defense

Stanford University Engineering & Science Institute – Nanoscience & Nanotechnology Center for Professional Development Program, 2005, Nine-Course Certificate Program

Saint-Gobain Crystals, Solon, Ohio, USA, 1999-2004 ¾ Research Scientist, R&D (2000 to 2004) ¾ Process Development Engineer, Manufacturing (1999-2000)

• PI and R&D Project Leader during $13 million dollar expansion project (on time and within budget) of optical microlithography materials (193nm and 157nm), data acquisition and analysis projects, and optical and scintillating materials growth, annealing, and characterization projects

• Initiated and acted as R&D liaison in numerous collaborations with academic, government and industrial laboratories; represented R&D during customer visits and conferences worldwide (U.S., Europe, Japan)

• Wrote nine (9) invention disclosures with one patent pending; authored over 100 peer-reviewed, confidential technical memos and reports, including white papers of marketing/R&D surveys of new materials applications and patent reviews

• Developed literature database of >1,600 references

• Managed students (co-ops), technicians and scientists in multiple projects; had up to five (5) direct reports at one time

Kristallographisches Institut, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, 1998 to 1999 ¾ Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow - all research executed in the German language

after taking four month intensive course at Goethe Institut, Freiburg, Germany (starting from no knowledge of German upon arrival in Germany)

¾ Funding from Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Research Fellowship; Advisers: Prof. Dr. K.W. Benz, Prof. Dr. Arne Cröll

• Project: “Toward a Better Understanding of Ge-Si Crystal Growth and its Implications for Semiconductor Processing”

• Developed and implemented novel experimental studies of interfacial kinetics and crystal characterizations of germanium-silicon compounds

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., St. Peters, Missouri, USA, 1997 ¾ Staff Engineer • Engineered Czochralski growth of 300mm diameter silicon crystals: designed and

implemented accessory calibration devices, developed and implemented historical tracking and analysis database

Gravitational Fluid Mechanics Laboratory, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA, 1991-1996


Tom Campbell

4

¾ Ph.D. funding from 3-year NASA Graduate Student Researcher Program Fellowship; NASA Adviser: Dr. Frank Szofran, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

• Developed, constructed and implemented an in situ, real-time visualization capability using non-intrusive X-ray radioscopy to study opaque semiconductor materials and liquid metals, ca. $1.0 million worth of equipment

• Researched convective fluid mechanics using laser holography with tracer particles in model transparent fluids

HONORS AND AWARDS

• 2014 Outstanding Paper Award - Olga S. Ivanova, Christopher B. Williams, Thomas A. Campbell (2013), “Additive Manufacturing (AM) and Nanotechnology: Promises and Challenges,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, Volume 19, Issue 5, 353-364, http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/authors/literati/awards.htm?year=2014&journal=rpj, http://www.ictas.vt.edu/communication/fullStory.php?id=216

• Senior Fellow (Non-resident), Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Strategic Foresight Initiative, Atlantic Council – http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/brent-scowcroft-center/strategic-foresight - 2013 to present.

• Attendee at invitation-only Global Trends 2030—A US Strategy for a Changing World, December 10-11, 2012, Newseum, Washington, D.C.

• Two figures of Additive Manufacturing systems from the Laboratory for Engineered Nano-Systems (LENS) published with acknowledgement to ICTAS / Virginia Tech in the Wohlers Report 2012, 2013—Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the Industry, Annual Worldwide Progress Report.

• Best Paper Award - “Metrology for Additive Manufacturing—Opportunities in a Rapidly Emerging Technology,” Metromeet 2012 (March 8-9, 2012); 8th International Conference on Industrial Dimensional Metrology; Bilbao, Spain.

• Invited participant for Annual Academic Reputation Survey to support the World University Rankings, Thomson Reuters and Times Higher Education, 2011 to present.

• Member of Board of Directors of the American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; Chair of Strategic Planning Standing Committee and Humboldt Kolleg 2012 Committee, 2010 to present, http://www.americanfriends-of-avh.org/about/american-friends-leadership-team/

• Cited as a “Key Player” in Frost & Sullivan report Carbon Nanotubes–Road to Commercialization, 2007

• Ambassador Scientist Abroad and U.S. Humboldtian on Campus, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, 2007 to 2013

• “Rookie of the Year,” ADA Technologies, Inc., 2006

• Design contest winner, North American R&D Orientation Seminar, Saint-Gobain Corporation, 2004


Tom Campbell

5

• Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Fundamentals of Management, 2001

• Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellowship, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany, 1997-1999

• NASA Graduate Student Researcher Program Fellowship, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, 1993-1996

• Magna Cum Laude, Honors in Mechanical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, 1991

• Best Technical Presentation Award, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Regional Conference, Tampa Bay, Florida, 1990

• Mechanical Engineering Honors Program, Vanderbilt University, 1990-1991

• President, Pi Tau Sigma Mechanical Engineering Honor Society, Vanderbilt University, 1990-1991

• Sabre Team Captain, Fencing Club, Vanderbilt University, 1989-1990

• Member, Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society, Vanderbilt University, 1990

• Member, Gamma Beta Phi Honor Society, Vanderbilt University, 1990

• Eagle Scout & Order of the Arrow, Boy Scouts of America, 1984

• “Class A” Caddy, Inverness Club (PGA Championship golf course), Toledo, Ohio, 1983.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Journal Reviewer

• International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier Sciences, (Impact Factor=2.081), 2014 to Present.

• Journal of International Commerce and Economics (JICE): http://www.usitc.gov/journals/, internal journal of the US International Trade Commission, 2014 to Present.

• Global Policy (Impact Factor=1.206), 2013 to Present

• Ceramic Transactions Proceedings, 2013 to Present

• Rapid Prototyping Journal (Impact Factor=0.72), 2012 to Present

• Nano Today (Impact Factor=18.432), 2011 to Present

• Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (Impact Factor=1.435), 2008 to Present

• Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology (Impact Factor=1.384), 2008 to Present

Proposal Reviewer

• International Graduate School of Science and Engineering (IGSSE, http://www.igsse.tum.de/), Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 2014.

• Masdar Institute, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2013.


Tom Campbell

6

• National Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki - NCN; http://www.ncn.gov.pl, Poland), 2013.

• "Measures to Attract Leading Scientists to Russian Educational Institutions" program by the European and International Cooperation located at the Project Management Agency, c/o German Aerospace Center (DLR), in Bonn, Germany, 2012 to 2013.

• US National Science Foundation (NSF) review panels - five since 2008

Professional Societies (Member)

• American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, 2003 to Present

• Materials Research Society, 1995 to Present

• American Association for Crystal Growth, 1995 to 2005

Other

• Attendee and participant at the invitation-only Global Innovation Summit, April 9-10, 2014, at the Atlantic Council and the US Department of State - http://www.globalsolutionssummit.com/.

• Attendee at invitation-only Thunderstorm Spiral 14-1: Threat Convergence Analysis, March 26-27, 2014, sponsored by the Rapid Reaction Technology Office, Emerging Capabilities Division within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (R&E) – purpose to examine homeland security implications of the convergence of sub-state threat groups with emerging technological trends

• Invited game-player on Massively Multiplayer Online War Game Leveraging the Internet, focused on new capabilities for the military in Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing), 2014

• Attendee at invitation-only DARPA/ISAT workshop on Rethinking CAD, Arlington, VA, October 24-25, 2013.

• ISO/QS-9000 Internal Auditing – certified auditor, 2000

POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS SUPERVISION 1. Olga S. Ivanova, Virginia Tech, February 2011 to July 2013

OHER SUPERVISION 1. Grzegorz Slawinski, Part-time Researcher, Virginia Tech, February 2013 to July 2013

GRADUATE STUDENT SUPERVISION Ph.D. Students 1. Konrad Schraml, Technical University of Munich (TUM), 2011-present; co-advising with

Prof. Dr. Jonathan Finley of the Department of Physics, TUM.

2. Amy Elliott, Virginia Tech, 2011-2014 (defended successfully February 17, 2014), served on dissertation committee; advisor was Prof. Chris Williams of the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Department of Engineering Education.

M.S. Students (Virginia Tech)


Tom Campbell

7

1. Earl Campaigne, M.S. student, 2012-2014, (defended successfully June 14, 2014), served on dissertation committee, advisor was Prof. Chris Williams of the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Department of Engineering Education.

2. Ivan Hanzlicek, M.S. student, 2013, served as supervisor on project “Computational Modeling of Stereolithography,” Technical University of Munich, advisor is Prof. Stefan Kollmannsberger, Department of Civil Engineering and Surveying, Chair for Computation in Engineering

3. Máté Péntek, M.S. student, 2013, served as supervisor on project “Computational Modeling of Stereolithography,” Technical University of Munich, advisor is Prof. Stefan Kollmannsberger, Department of Civil Engineering and Surveying, Chair for Computation in Engineering

4. Pegah Ghanbari, Ph.D. student, 2009-2011, supervised her activity on two subcontracts from ADA Technologies, Inc. to Virginia Tech.

Industrial Interns (supervised at Saint-Gobain Crystals & Detectors) 1. Brian Skinn, industrial intern, 2001 and 2003; Brian went on to receive his Ph.D. from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

2. Yong Li, industrial intern, 2002

NATIONALITY U.S. citizen (natural born)

LANGUAGES English—native speaker

German—professional working proficiency

French—reading ability

PUBLICATIONS Intellectual Property Patents Issued 1. Campbell, T.A.; Henry, K.D. “Carbon nanotube nanometrology system,” Assignee: ADA

Technologies, Inc., United States Patent US 7,564,549 B2, July 21, 2009.

2. Rylander, C.; Campbell, T.A.; Wang, Ge; Xu, Y.; Kosoglu, M.A.; “Fiber Array for Optical Imaging and Therapeutics,” Assignee: Virginia Tech, US Patent No.: 8,798,722 B2; August 5, 2014; http://www.ictas.vt.edu/communication/fullStory.php?id=219

Patent Applications 1. Campbell, T.A.; C.B. Williams; O.S. Ivanova; A. Elliott, “Method of Fabrication of

Physically Unclonable Functions via Additive Manufacturing,” Assignee: Virginia Tech, US Patent Application No. ___; filed November 21, 2014.

2. Rylander, C.; Campbell, T.A.; Wang, Ge; Xu, Y.; Kosoglu, M.A.; “Fiber Array for Optical


Tom Campbell

8

Imaging and Therapeutics,” Assignee: Virginia Tech, International Patent Application No.: WO 2010/099548 A2, filed March 1, 2010; expired.

3. Campbell, T.A.; Rylander, M.N.; Dorn, H.C.; “Carbonaceous Nanomaterials as Imaging and Therapeutic Enhancers,” Assignee: Virginia Tech, US Patent Application No.: 61/251,349, filed October 14, 2009; expired.

4. Campbell, T.A., “Carbon nanotube purification and separation system,” Assignee: ADA Technologies, Inc., United States Patent Application 2008/0069758 A1, filed May 8, 2007.

5. Foise, J.W., Campbell, T.A., “Annealing method for halide crystal,” Assignee: Saint-Gobain Crystals, United States Patent Application 2004/0231582 A1, filed November 25, 2004.

6. Foise, J.W., Campbell, T.A., “Annealing method for halide crystal,” Assignee: Saint-Gobain Crystals, WO 2004/079058 A1, International Patent Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), filed 25 February 2004.

Provisional Patents 1. Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B.; Ivanova, O.S.; Elliott, A.M.; “Fabrication of Physically

Unclonable Functions via Additive Manufacturing,” US Patent Application # 61/906,927, filed November 21, 2013; under exclusive licensing option, 5-21-14 to 5-20-15. Press release noted by Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140630-902965.html

2. Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S., “Anti-counterfeiting System for Textiles,” U.S. Patent Application No: 61/775,762, filed March 11, 2013; expired.

3. Ivanova, O.S.; Campbell, T.A.; “Synthesis of Quantum Dot Squares”; United States Provisional Patent; U.S. Patent Application No.: 61/548,959; Assignee: Virginia Tech; VTIP 12-052, filed October 19, 2011; expired.

4. Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S.; Williams, C.B.; “Quantum Dot Optical Temperature and Pressure Probes Embedded in 3D Objects”; United States Provisional Patent; U.S. Patent Application No: 61/538,495; Assignee: Virginia Tech; Patent Filing Date: September 23, 2011; expired.

5. Joseph, E.; Cornelius, C.; Long, T.; Baird, D.; Campbell, T.A.; “Nano Foam Structures from Multi Layer Constructions”; United States Provisional Patent; Assignee: Virginia Tech, filed March 30, 2009; expired.

6. Rylander, C.; Campbell, T.A.; Xu, Y.; “Nanoneedle for Optical Bio-imaging and Therapeutics in Subcutaneous Skin”; Assignee: Virginia Tech, United States Provisional Patent, filed May 21, 2008; expired.

7. Dorn, H; Rylander, M.N.; Campbell, T.A., “Carbonaceous Nanomaterials for Imaging and Treatment,” Assignee: Virginia Tech, United States Provisional Patent, filed November 27, 2007; expired.

8. Campbell, T.A., “Carbon Nanotube Nanometrology of Charge Carrier Dynamics,” Assignee: ADA Technologies, Inc., United States Provisional Patent, filed August 8, 2007; expired.


Tom Campbell

9

Invention Disclosures 1. Campbell, T.A., “Anti-counterfeiting system from nanomaterials-based radio signals,”

Invention Disclosure, VTIP 13-087; Assignee: Virginia Tech, filed January 11, 2013.

2. Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S., “Additive Manufacturing with Ellipsoidal Mirrors,” Invention Disclosure, VTIP 12-133; Assignee: Virginia Tech, filed April 28, 2012.

3. Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S.; Williams, C.B., “Smart Camouflage,” Invention Disclosure VTIP 12-115; Assignee: Virginia Tech, filed April 4, 2012.

4. Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B.; Ivanova, O.S., “Feedback Monitoring and Control Capability through Nanomaterials for Additive Manufacturing Processes,” Invention Disclosure VTIP 12-0824; Assignee: Virginia Tech, filed January 24, 2012.

5. Ivanova, O.S.; Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B., “Personalized Body Armor through Additive Manufacturing,” Invention Disclosure VTIP 12-038; Assignee: Virginia Tech, filed September 14, 2011.

6. Campbell, T.A., “Internet-enabled Contact Lens,” Invention Disclosure; Assignee: Virginia Tech, IP Disclosure VTIP 11-122, filed May 12, 2011.

7. Campbell, T.A.; Sriranganathan, N.; Bose, T., “Pathogen and Allergen Detection via Mobile Technology,” Invention Disclosure; Assignee: Virginia Tech, Invention Disclosure VTIP 11-093, filed March 25, 2011.

8. Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B., Lu, P., “Programmable Matter via 3D Printing of Nanomaterials,” Invention Disclosure VTIP 11-069; Assignee: Virginia Tech, filed December 21, 2010.

Book Chapters 1. Thomas A. Campbell, John Slotwinski (2013), “Metrology for Additive Manufacturing—

Opportunities in a Rapidly Emerging Technology,” Advances in Engineering Research, Volume 7, Nova Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=42306.

Refereed Publications 1. K. Schraml, M. Spiegl, M. Kammerlocher, G. Bracher, J. Bartl, T. Campbell, J. J. Finley, M.

Kaniber (2014), “Optical properties and interparticle coupling of plasmonic bowtie nanoantennas on a semiconducting substrate,” Physical Review B, 90, 035435 – Published 23 July 2014, http://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.035435 (Impact Factor=3.767)

2. O. Ivanova, A. Elliott, T. Campbell, C.B. Williams (2014), “Unclonable Security Features for Additive Manufacturing,” Additive Manufacturing, accepted and in press, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214860414000037.

3. Amelia Elliott, Olga Ivanova, Christopher Williams, Thomas Campbell, (2013) “Inkjet Printing of Quantum Dots in Photopolymer for use in Additive Manufacturing of Nanocomposites,” (2013) Advanced Engineering Materials, published online - DOI: 10.1002/adem.201300020; print version in press. (Impact Factor=1.185)


Tom Campbell

10

4. Thomas A. Campbell, Olga S. Ivanova (2013) “3D Printing of Multifunctional Nanocomposites,” Nano Today, Volume 8, 119-120 (Impact Factor=18.432)

5. Thomas A. Campbell, Olga S. Ivanova (2013), “Additive Manufacturing as a Disruptive Technology—Implications of Three-Dimensional Printing,” Technology and Innovation, Volume 15, Number 1, 67-79.

6. Olga S. Ivanova, Christopher B. Williams, Thomas A. Campbell (2013), “Additive Manufacturing (AM) and Nanotechnology: Promises and Challenges,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, Volume 19, Issue 5, 353-364. (Impact Factor=0.72) – 2014 Outstanding Paper, as selected by journal’s editorial team.

7. Olga S. Ivanova, Kristen A. Zimmermann, James R. Tuggle, Thomas A. Campbell, (2013) “Synthesis of Non-Spherical CdSe Nanocrystals,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15, 1382-1390. (Impact Factor=3.287)

8. Connor M. McNulty, Neyla Arnas, Thomas A. Campbell (2012), “Toward the Printed World: Additive Manufacturing and Implications for National Security,” Ft. McNair, DC: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Defense Horizon 73, September 2012.

9. Jon Whitney, Saugata Sarkar, Jianfei Zhang, Harry Dorn, Christopher Rylander, Dave Geohegan, Thomas A. Campbell, Thao Do, Taylor Young, Mary Kyle Manson, and Marissa Nichole Rylander (2011), “Single walled carbon nanohorns as photothermal cancer agents,” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, Volume 43, Issue 1, 43-51. (Impact Factor=2.748)

10. Shu, Chun-Ying; Zhang, Jianfei; Ge, Jiechao; Sim, Jae; Burke, Brian; Williams, Keith; Rylander, Nichole; Campbell, Tom; Puretzky, Alexander; Rouleau, Christopher; Geohegan, David; More, Karren; Esker, Alan; Gibson, Harry; Dorn, Harry (2010), “A Facile High-Speed Vibration Milling Method to Water-Disperse Single-Walled Carbon Nanohorns,” Chemistry of Materials, 22, 347-351. (Impact Factor=7.286)

11. Campbell, TA (2009), “Measuring the Nano-World,” Nano Today, 4, 380-381. (Impact Factor=17.689)

12. “Interagency working group on manufacturing research and development – instrumentation, metrology, and standards for nanomanufacturing,” (October 17-19, 2006), National Nanotechnology Initiative—Special Publication; Sponsors: NIST, US Department of Commerce, NSF, Office of Naval Research, editorial contributor.

13. Campbell,TA; Schweizer,M; Dold,P; Cröll,A; Benz,KW (2001): Float zone growth and characterization of Ge1-xSix (x≤10 at%) single crystals. J. Crystal Growth, 226, 231-239. (Impact Factor=1.726)

14. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1999): Growth rate effects during indium-antimony crystal growth. Crystal Research & Technology, 34 (3), 275-283. (Impact Factor=0.946)

15. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1998): Compositional effects on solidification of congruently melting InSb. Crystal Research & Technology, 33 (5), 717-732. (Impact Factor=0.946)

16. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1998): Interface dynamics during indium antimonide crystal growth. Crystal Research & Technology, 33 (5), 707-716. (Impact Factor=0.946)


Tom Campbell

11

17. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1997): In situ visualization of off-stoichiometric equilibrium crystal growth within indium antimonide: antimony-rich composition. J. Crystal Growth, 174, 238-244. (Impact Factor=1.726)

18. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1997): In situ visualization of constitutional supercooling within a Bridgman-Stockbarger system. J. Crystal Growth, 171, 1-11. (Impact Factor=1.726)

19. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1995): A novel vertical Bridgman-Stockbarger crystal growth system with visualization capability. Measurement Science & Technology, 6 (5), 472-476. (Impact Factor=1.494)

20. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1995): Radioscopic visualization of indium antimonide growth by the vertical Bridgman-Stockbarger technique. J. Crystal Growth, 147, 408-410. (Impact Factor=1.726)

21. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1995): Modeling of liquid encapsulated gallium melts. Acta Astronautica, 35 (12), 805-812. (Impact Factor=0.614)

22. Campbell,TA; Koster,JN (1994): Visualization of liquid-solid interface morphologies in gallium subject to natural convection. J. Crystal Growth, 140, 414-425. (Impact Factor=1.726)

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS & OTHER PUBLICATIONS 1. Jeffrey H. Reed, Thomas A. Campbell (2014), “Connect Anywhere, Anytime with

Anything-Promises, Challenges and Implications of the Internet of Everything,” Scientific American, accepted, in press.

2. M. Kaniber, K. Schraml. J. Bartl, G. Glashagen, A. Regler, T. Campbell, and J. J. Finley (2015), “Non-linear optical effects in plasmonic gold nanoantennas,” SPIE Photonics West-Conference 2015, San Francisco, California; accepted as oral presentation.

3. Thomas A. Campbell, Skylar Tibbits, Banning Garrett (November 2014), “The Programmable World,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-program-the-material-world/ .

4. Thomas A. Campbell (2014), “Moore’s Law 2.0,” Future Source, Atlantic Council, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/futuresource/moore-s-law-2-0

5. Jonathan Finley, Tom Campbell, Olga Ivanova, Amelia Elliott, Christopher B. Williams, Michael Kaniber, Konrad Schraml, (June 16-18, 2014) “7.04 Hybrid Photonic Nanomaterials,” IGSSE Forum, Technische Universität München, Garching, Germany, poster.

6. Thomas A. Campbell (2014), “Beyond 3D Printing: Programming the Material World,” The New Atlanticist, Atlantic Council, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-next-wave-4d-printing-aims-to-program-the-material-world.

7. Thomas A. Campbell, Skylar Tibbits, Banning Garrett (2014), “The Next Wave: 4D Printing - Programming the Material World,” Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/The_Next_Wave_4D_Printing_


Tom Campbell

12

Programming_the_Material_World.pdf; reported by Bloomberg Businessweek - http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-27/real-life-transformers-bring-opportunity-and-danger-new-report-says and International Relations and Security Network - http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?lng=en&id=182356

8. Thomas A. Campbell (April 14, 2014), “Beyond Today’s Internet,” Future Source, Atlantic

Council, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/futuresource/beyond-today-s-internet

9. Thomas A. Campbell, William J. Cass (2013), “3-D Printing Will Be a Counterfeiter's Best Friend—Why we need to rethink intellectual property for the era of additive manufacturing,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=3-d-printing-will-be-a-counterfeiters-best-friend

10. “Envisioning 2030: US Strategy for the Coming Technology Revolution,” (2013), Strategic Foresight Initiative, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council, contributing author and reviewer.

11. “The Future of Unmanned Vehicle Systems in Virginia—2014,” (2013), Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Department of Aviation, http://www.doav.virginia.gov/Downloads/Studies/UAVs%20in%20Virginia/TheFutureOfUVSInVirginia2014.pdf, contributing author and reviewer.

12. Ivan Hanzlicek, Chunxiang Huang, Máté Péntek, Stefan Kollmannsberger, Thomas Campbell, (2013), “Computational Modeling of Stereolithography,” CoMe-Software Lab 2013, Technical University of Munich (TUM).

13. Peter Haynes, Thomas A. Campbell (2013), “Hacking the Internet of Everything,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hacking-internet-of-everything

14. K. Schraml, M. Spiegl, M. Kammerlocher, O. Ivanova, G. Bracher, A. Elliott, B. Mayer, T. Campbell, M. Kaniber, J.J. Finley (June 22, 2013), “7.04 Hybrid Photonic Nanomaterials,” IGSSE Research Forum 2013, Raitenhaslach Monastery, Burghausen, Germany, poster.

15. Olga S. Ivanova, Thomas A. Campbell (2013), “Fluorescent Microspheres as Tags for Anti-Counterfeiting of Textiles,” TechConnect 2013, Washington, D.C., poster and technical proceedings.

16. Roop Mahajan, Jeff Reed, Naren Ramakrishnan, Rolf Mueller, Chris Williams, Thomas Campbell, (November 9-15, 2012), “Cultivating Emerging and Disruptive Technologies,” ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Houston, Texas, presentation and technical proceedings (refereed).

17. Pegah Ghanbari, Sayan Naha, Tom Campbell (November 2, 2012), “Application of Carbonaceous Nanoparticles for Anti-Counterfeiting Industry,” Interdisciplinary Research Symposium, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, poster.

18. A.M. Elliott, O.S. Ivanova, C.B. Williams, T.A. Campbell, (August 5-9, 2012), “An investigation of the effects of quantum dot nanoparticles on photopolymer resin for use in polyjet direct 3D printing,” SFF Symposium, Austin, Texas, presentation and technical proceedings (refereed).


Tom Campbell

13

19. K. Schraml, M. Kammerlocher, O. Ivanova, B. Mayer, G. Bracher, A. Laucht, B. Widemann, M. Kaniber, E. Margapoti, T. Campbell, J. Finley (July 4-6, 2012), “7.04 – Hybrid Photonic Nanostructures,” IGSSE Forum 2012—Careers in the 21st Century, Raitenhaslach Monastery, Burghausen, Germany, poster.

20. O.S. Ivanova, A. Elliott, T.A. Campbell, C.B. Williams (June 26, 2012), “Polymer nanocomposites for additive manufacturing,” World Polymer Congress - MACRO2012, Blacksburg, VA, presentation and technical proceedings (refereed).

21. O.S. Ivanova, K.A. Zimmerman, T.A. Campbell, “Synthesis of Non-Spherical CdSe Quantum Dots,” Nanotech 2012, Vol. 1, 457-460. (refereed)

22. O.S. Ivanova, A. Elliott, T.A. Campbell, C.B. Williams. (2012). “Additive Manufacturing with Nano-Inks.” Nanotech 2012, Vol. 2, 275-278. (refereed)

23. Campbell, T.A. (2012), “Additive Manufacturing as a Disruptive Technology—Implications of Three-Dimensional Printing,” white paper, written at the request of the New America Foundation.

24. Williams, C.B.; Campbell, T.A. (2012) “Additive Manufacturing at Virginia Tech,” ICTAS Spring 2012 Newsletter.

25. Campbell, T.A. (March 8-9, 2012); “Metrology for Additive Manufacturing—Opportunities in a Rapidly Emerging Technology,” Metromeet 2012; 8th International Conference on Industrial Dimensional Metrology; Bilbao, Spain; conference proceedings—awarded “Best Paper” for conference.

26. Thomas A. Campbell, Christopher B. Williams, Olga S. Ivanova, Banning Garrett (2011), “Could 3D Printing Change the World? Technologies, Potential and Implications of Additive Manufacturing,” Report No. 1; Strategic Foresight Initiative; Atlantic Council; report was picked up by >20 blogs and websites, including www.forbes.com, as a “Must Read”; downloaded more than 5,000 times as of August 2012; http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/files/publication_pdfs/403/101711_ACUS_3DPrinting.PDF

27. Olga S. Ivanova, Christopher B. Williams, Thomas A. Campbell (August 8-10, 2011), “Additive Manufacturing and Nanotechnology: Promises and Challenges;” The 22nd International SFF Symposium-An Additive Manufacturing Conference; Austin, Texas; conference proceedings, pp. 733-749. (refereed)

28. Whitney, J.; Dorn, H.; Rylander, C.; Campbell, T.; Geohegan, D.; Rylander, M.N.; (2010) “Spatiotemporal Temperature and Cell Viability Measurement Analysis of Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes and Single Walled Nanohorns as Photoabsorbers for Use in Tumor Photothermal Therapy,” ICTAS Research Day, poster – awarded 2nd Prize for technical and presentation content among 75 judged posters.

29. Whitney, J.; Dorn, H.; Rylander, C.; Campbell, T.; Geohegan, D.; Rylander, M.N. (June 16-19, 2010), “Spatiotemporal temperature and cell viability measurement following laser therapy in combination with carbon nanohorns,” Proc. of the ASME 2010 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Naples, Florida. (refereed)


Tom Campbell

14

30. Sarkar, S., Lutkus, A., Mahaney, J., Dorn, H., Campbell, T., Geohegan, D., and Rylander, M.N. (October 15-16, 2009) “Effect of reactive oxygen species (ros) in water soluble carbon nanohorns during laser irradiation with different laser parameters,” The 6th Annual Via Research Recognition Day, Edward Via Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine (VCOM), VA, USA, poster.

31. Campbell, T., Finkielstein, C. (2009), “Cancer Research at Virginia Tech—Understanding the Fundamentals of Cancer and Developing Appropriate Drugs,” ICTAS Spring 2009 Newsletter.

32. Whitney, J., Sarkar, S., Sayan, N., Zhang, J., Lutkus, A., Mamaney, J., Dorn, H., Campbell, T., Geohegan, D., and Rylander, M.N. (October 14-15, 2009) “Single Walled Carbon Nanohorns as Near Infra-Red Photoabsorbers for Thermal Tumor Treatment,” A Humboldt Kolleg on Nano-Bio conference, The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, Roanoke, VA, USA, poster.

33. Whitney, J.; Zhang, J.; Dorn, H.; Campbell, T.A.; Naha, S.; Rylander, M.N. (June 17-21, 2009), “Carbon Nanotube Peapod-Mediated Laser Cancer Therapy,” Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Summer Bioengineering Conference (SBC2009), Resort at Squaw Creek, Lake Tahoe, CA.; presentation and technical proceedings (refereed).

34. Sarkar, S., Lutkus, A., Mahaney, J., Dorn, H., Campbell, T., Geohegan, D., and Rylander, M.N., (June 17-21, 2009) “Carbon nanohorns as photochemical and photothermal agents,” Proceedings of the ASME Summer Bioengineering Conference (SBC2009), Resort at Squaw Creek, Lake Tahoe, CA, USA: ASME; presentation and technical proceedings (refereed).

35. Campbell, T.A., Allocca, C.M. (June 9-11, 2009), “A needs-based assessment of measurements and their potential solutions for nanotechnology / environmental, health & safety,” International Conference on the Environmental Implications and Applications of Nanotechnology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, poster presentation.

36. Campbell, T.A.; Allocca, C.M. (May 6, 2009), “Assessment: Nano-EHS,” NIST internal publication (refereed).

37. Allocca, C.M; Campbell, T.A. (October 7-9, 2008), “A Needs-based Assessment of Measurements for Nanotechnology / Environmental Health and Safety,” International Environmental Nanotechnology Conference, Chicago, IL, poster and proceedings article (refereed).

38. Sarkar, S., Lutkus, A., Mahaney, J., Dorn, H., Campbell, T., Geohegan, D., and Rylander, M.N. (October 3, 2008) “Measurement of reactive oxygen species in water soluble carbon nanohorn,” The 5th Annual Via Research Recognition Day, Edward Via Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine (VCOM), VA, USA, poster.

39. Allocca, C.M; Campbell, T.A. (June 1-5, 2008), “A Needs-based Assessment of Measurements for Nanotechnology / Environmental Health and Safety,” NSTI 2008, Boston, MA, presentation and technical proceedings (refereed).

40. Campbell, T.A.; Ahrenkiel, R.; Lehman, J.; Hurst, K.; Dillon, A. (August 14-16, 2007) “Electronic Nanometrology of Bulk Carbon Nanotubes,” NIST Workshop on Materials Characterization for Nanoscale Reliability, Boulder, CO, poster.


Tom Campbell

15

41. Campbell, T.A.; Manelski, D.; Thomas, E.; Prunier, V.; Bateman, C. (August 4-9, 2002) “Does calcium fluoride have a preferred growth orientation?,” Fourteenth American Conference on Crystal Growth and Epitaxy (ACCGE-14), Seattle, WA, poster.

42. Dold, P.; Schweizer, M.; Cröll, A.; Campbell, T.A.; Boschert, S.; Benz, K.W. (July 30 – August 4, 2001) "Float Zone Growth of Alloy Semiconductor Crystals: Influence of Solutocapillary Convection,” Thirteenth International Conference on Crystal Growth/Eleventh International Conference on Vapor Growth & Epitaxy (ICCG-13/ICVGE-11), Kyoto, Japan, poster (refereed).

43. Campbell, T.A.; Pool, R.E.; Koster, J.N. (January 10-13, 1994) “Melting and solidification of a liquid metal at a vertical wall”. 32nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA 94-0792, 1-4. (refereed)

44. Koster, J.N.; Prakash, A.; Campbell, T.A.; Pline, A. (November 8-13, 1992) “Analysis of convection in immiscible liquid layers with novel Particle Tracking Velocimetry”. ASME Winter Annual Meeting, AMD - Vol 154, Fluid Mechanics Phenomena in Microgravity, Ed. D.A. Siginer, M.M. Weislogel, Book No. G00766-1992, 95-103. (refereed)

PRESENTATIONS (Invited Talks marked by *, Keynote Talks by **) 1. Thomas A. Campbell (October 9, 2014*), “Briefing on Disruptive Technologies,” National

Security Council, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, White House, Washington, D.C. 2. Thomas A. Campbell (May 28, 2014*), “Black Swans and Emerging Disruptive

Technologies,” Implications of Technology Change: Emerging Disruptive Technology, S&T Conference, British Embassy, Washington, D.C., talk and panel participation.

3. Thomas A. Campbell (April 8, 2014), “How Might Additive Manufacturing Impact the Sea Services?,” Sea Air Space Expo, Gaylord Convention Center, National Harbor, MD; presenter and panel moderator; included on the panel were a Navy 1-star admiral and a Coast Guard rear admiral.

4. Anil Vullikanti, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, Naren Ramakrishnan, Thomas A. Campbell (April 4, 2014), “Big Data Forecasting,” ICTAS Black Swan Seminar, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, panel moderator.

5. Thomas A. Campbell (February 19, 2014**), “Leapfrog Technologies & Opportunities in Agriculture,” Partnering for Innovation (part of USAID’s Feed the Future), 84 participants from 14 countries, webinar.

6. Thomas A. Campbell (February 6, 2014*), “Toward the Printed World—Opportunities in Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing),” Food & Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD.

7. Jeff Reed, Tom Martin, Thomas A. Campbell (January 31, 2014), “Connect Anywhere, Anytime with Anything [Internet of Things],” ICTAS Black Swan Seminar, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, panel moderator.

8. Thomas A. Campbell (December 10-11, 2013**), “Societal Implications of Additive Manufacturing,” Additive Manufacturing for the Government, Washington, D.C.


Tom Campbell

16

9. Thomas A. Campbell (October 25, 2013), “3D Printing with Nanomaterials—New Opportunities for Design,” DARPA-ISAT Rethinking CAD Workshop, Arlington, VA.

10. Thomas A. Campbell (October 23, 2013*), Panel on Emerging Technologies Series, Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, New York, http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-science/3d-printing-challenges-opportunities-international-relations/p31690, viewed more than 3,400 times on YouTube as of May 2014.

11. Thomas A. Campbell (October 10, 2013*), “Implications of Disruptive Technologies,” Strategic Foresight Initiative, Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C.; attendees included former president of Serbia, former prime minister of Italy, former minister of foreign affairs of Malta, and others; panel speaker.

12. Thomas A. Campbell (July 16, 2013), Panel on Advanced Manufacturing and US Competitiveness, 2013 High Tech Roundtable, US International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.

13. Thomas A. Campbell (July 12, 2013*), “Toward the Printed World—Opportunities in Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing),” Fixed Income Forum, Institutional Investors, San Diego, CA.

14. Thomas A. Campbell (June 7, 2013*), “Toward the Printed World—Opportunities in Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing),” Singapore Economic Development Board, Arlington, VA.

15. Thomas A. Campbell, (March 27-28, 2013*), “Toward the Printed World—an Overview of Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing),” NeXTech Wargame #4, sponsored by Office of Secretary of Defense and US Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD.

16. Thomas A. Campbell, (February 20, 2013*), “Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)—LENS, the Laboratory for Engineered NanoSystems,” presented to Dr. Lawrence Schuette, director of research, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA.

17. Thomas A. Campbell, (February 19, 2013*), “Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)—overview and trade implications,” U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.

18. Campbell, T.A. (December 3, 2012*), “Toward the Printed World: Health Care and Legal Impacts to National Security and Future Trends,” Additive Manufacturing (AM) Workshop: US National Defense and the 3D Printing Revolution, Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C.

19. Campbell, T.A. (October 25, 2012*), Panelist for PhD Final Seminar, Technical University of Munich Graduate School, Munich, Germany; all in German language.

20. Campbell, T.A. (October 24, 2012*), “Additive Manufacturing—Potential for Numerical Simulation Research,” Technical University of Munich; Munich, Germany.

21. Campbell, T.A. (October 16, 2012*), “Additive Manufacturing—Applications, Challenges, and the Future,” Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Washington, D.C., seminar recorded and broadcast live to all 17 intelligence community agencies.

22. Campbell, T.A. (October 16, 2012*), “Additive Manufacturing—Materials,” Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C.


Tom Campbell

17

23. Campbell, T.A. (September 28, 2012*), “Additive Manufacturing at Virginia Tech—Nanocomposites Research,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama.

24. Williams, C.B. and Campbell, T.A. (September 21, 2012*), “Additive Manufacturing: Implications on Research and Manufacturing,” Black Swan seminar series, Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS), Virginia Tech.

25. Campbell, T.A. (June 21, 2012*) “Laboratory for Engineered Nano-Systems (LENS),” Condensed Matter and Materials Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA.

26. Campbell, T.A. (April 13, 2012*) “ICTAS Associate Director for Outreach—Activities,” ICTAS Staff Meeting, Blacksburg, VA.

27. Campbell, T.A. (April 11, 2012) “ETC and DoD Labs Meeting,” VTRC-Arlington, Arlington, VA.

28. Campbell, T.A. (March 8-9, 2012**) “Metrology for Additive Manufacturing—Opportunities in a Rapidly Emerging Technology,” Metromeet 2012; 8th International Conference on Industrial Dimensional Metrology; Bilbao, Spain.

29. Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B. (January 30, 2012*), “Additive Manufacturing as a Disruptive Technology,” US Department of State, Washington, D.C.; invited presentation from the Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State, Dr. E. William Colglazier.

30. Campbell, T.A. (January 11, 2012*), “Additive Manufacturing Research at Virginia Tech-Nanotechnology and Metrology Opportunities,” National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD.

31. Campbell, T.A. (January 10, 2012), “Kolleg Committee Update,” American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Board of Directors meeting.

32. Campbell, T.A. (November 16, 2011*); “Nanomaterials and 3D Printing – a New Paradigm for Nanocomposites,” Workshop on Functional Hybrid Nanosystems; TUM Institute of Advanced Study; Garching, Germany.

33. Campbell, T.A. (November 4, 2011*), Interdisciplinary Research (IDR) Honor Society-Iota Delta Rho, Virginia Tech, panelist during interactive workshop.

34. Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B. (October 12, 2011*), “Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing) – Transformative Technology for Development and Emergency Support,” Pentagon (inner courtyard), Washington, D.C.

35. Campbell, T.A.; Williams, C.B. (October 5, 2011*), “Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing) – Transformative Technology for Development and Emergency Support,” TIDES, National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C.

36. Williams, C.B.; Campbell, T.A. (August 19, 2011*), “Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)—State of the Art, Potential, and Implications,” National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C.

37. Campbell, T.A. (July 18, 2011*), “Additive Manufacturing and Nanotechnology: A new


Tom Campbell

18

breed of nanocomposites,” Hewlett Packard, Fort Collins, Colorado.

38. Williams, C.B.; Campbell, T.A. (March 23, 2011*), “Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)—State of the Art, Potential, and Implications,” Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C.

39. Campbell, T.A. (February 24, 2011*), “ICTAS Overview,” NVTC University Technology Exhibition, panel, McLean, VA.

40. Campbell, T.A. (May 24, 2011*), “Strategic Planning,” American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Board of Directors Meeting, Washington, D.C.

41. Campbell, T.A. (January 10, 2011*), “Strategic Planning and Humboldt Kolleg,” American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Board of Directors Meeting, Washington, D.C.

42. Campbell, T.A. (October 9, 2010*), “Strategic Planning and Humboldt Kolleg,” American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Board of Directors Meeting, Berlin, Germany.

43. Campbell, T.A. (June 17, 2010**), “Printing opportunities with nanomaterials,” International Graduate School of Science and Engineering (IGSSE) Forum, Technical University of Munich, Raitenhaslach Monastery, Burghausen, Germany.

44. Campbell, T.A. (March 31, 2010*), “Printing opportunities with nanomaterials,” Hewlett-Packard (HP), Fort Collins, Colorado.

45. Campbell, T.A. (December 14, 2009*), “Nano-Bio Interfaces,” Institute for Inhalation Biology, GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health, Munich, Germany.

46. Allocca, C.M.; Campbell, T.A. (June 3, 2009*), “(PACRIM8-S22-004-2009) A Needs-based Assessment of Measurements for Nanotechnology / Environmental Health and Safety (Invited Speaker),” 8th Pacific Rim Conference on Ceramic and Glass Technology, Vancouver, British Columbia.

47. Campbell, T.A.; Allocca, C.M. (May 6 & 28, 2009**), “Nano-EHS and the United States Measurement System,” webinar with the United States Measurement System (USMS) office of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

48. Campbell, T.A.; Allocca, C.M. (June 17, 2008*), “Nanotechnology – Safety and Future Trends,” NIST Safety Day, Gaithersburg, MD, presentation to all of NIST (~5,000 employees in audience and via video conference).

49. Campbell, T.A.; Allocca, C.M. (June 9-10, 2008**), “A Needs-based Assessment of Measurement Needs for Nanotechnology / Environmental Health and Safety,” Nano-EHS Workshop, Crystal City, VA, http://ceramics.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/technical_campbell.pdf

50. Campbell, T.A.; Allocca, C.M (May 29, 2008*) “A Needs-based Assessment of Measurements for Nanotechnology / Environmental Health and Safety,” Rice University, Houston, TX.

51. Zhang, J.; Ashraf-Khorassani, M.; Reid, J.; Rylander, N.; Campbell, T.; Dorn, H. (May 21, 2008), "The Synthesis and Characterization of Trimetallic Nitride Fullerene Nanopeapods,”


Tom Campbell

19

213th Electrochemical Society (ECS) Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, presentation.

52. Campbell, T.A.; Allocca, C.M (April 6-9, 2008) “A Needs-Based Assessment of Nanotechnology / Environmental, Health and Safety,” Nanomedicine Workshop, Wake Forest University, presentation.

53. Allocca, C.M; Campbell, T.A. (January 26-28, 2008) “Measurement Needs for Nanotechnology / Environmental, Health and Safety,” IMI Engineered Fine and Nanoparticle Applications Conference, Orlando, FL, presentation.

54. Hurst, K.E.; Ahrenkiel, R.K.; Campbell, T.; Lehman, J.H. (October 16, 2007*), “A Novel Approach for Electronic Nanotechnology of Carbon Nanotubes,” AVS 54th International Symposium, Session Nanometer-scale Science & Technology, Paper NS+MS-TuA4, presentation.

55. Lehman, J.L.; Street, L.; Campbell, T.A. (June 19-21, 2007*) “Nanometrology of carbon nanotubes using novel and traditional nanotools,” EuroNanoForum 2007, Düsseldorf, Germany.

56. Campbell, T.A. (May 20-24, 2007*) “Materials & Processing, Nanocomposite Products,” Carbon Nanotube Manufacturing Special Session, NSTI 2007, Santa Clara, CA.

57. Campbell, T.A. (February 20, 2007*) “Nanotechnology: a Truly Interdisciplinary Opportunity,” American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)-Denver Chapter.

58. Campbell, T.A. (April 12, 2005*) “Bridging Crystal Growth R&D and Process Control,” University of Colorado at Denver, Chemistry Department, student seminar.

59. Campbell, T.A.; Mendicino, M.; Fillot, J.-J. (August 13-18, 2000*) “Advances in Crystal Optics for DUV Microlithography,” Twelfth American Conference on Crystal Growth & Epitaxy (ACCGE-12), Vail, Colorado.

60. Campbell, T.A. (December 16, 1998*) “Preparation of HfB2 and ZrB2 single crystals by the floating-zone method (S. Otani, M.M. Korsukova, T. Mitsuhashi, J. Crystal Growth 186 (4), 1998),” Literature Review Seminar, Kristallographisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany (presented in German).

61. Campbell, T.A.; Koster, J.N. (July 26-31, 1998) “Interface dynamics during indium antimonide crystal growth,” Twelfth International Conference on Crystal Growth (ICCG-12), Jerusalem, Israel, presentation.

62. Campbell, T.A. (April 21, 1998*) “Der Einfluß der Schmelzzusammensetzung auf die Bridgman-Züchtung von InSb [The Influence of Melt Composition on Bridgman Growth of InSb],” Kristallographisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany.

63. Campbell, T.A.; Koster, J.N. (August 4-9, 1996) “In situ visualization of constitutional supercooling within indium antimonide crystal growth,” Tenth American Conference on Crystal Growth (ACCGE-10), Vail, CO, presentation.

64. Campbell, T.A.; Mellor, A., (1990) “A two-dimensional, thermoelastic model of solid rocket propellant material testing,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Regional Conference. Tampa Bay, FL, presentation, awarded “Best Technical Presentation”


Tom Campbell

20

CONFERENCES & WORKSHOPS ORGANIZED 1. ICTAS Research Day, (October 11, 2013), keynote speaker Dr. Steven Chu (12th US

Secretary of Energy, 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics), Burruss Hall and Kelly Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.

2. “Additive Manufacturing Symposium—Preparing for National Prominence in a Disruptive Technology,” (August 20, 2012), Truman Room, White House Conference Center and Hamilton Crowne Plaza, Washington, D.C.; organized and facilitated with OSTP, DoE, LLNL, NIST, and Atlantic Council; funding from Department of Energy and LLNL, 55 attendees from academia, federal and national laboratories, think tanks, and 18 federal agencies.

3. “Humboldt Kolleg: Collaboration and Networks in the 21st Century” (February 24-25, 2012), funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; Keynote Dr. Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of Science, Science Envoy for the Obama administration, and Professor Emeritus of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, 86 attendees, http://www.cpe.vt.edu/avhkolleg_networks/

4. Workshop with Defense Laboratory Enterprise on ICTAS-affiliated VTRC-Arlington research, (January 30, 2012), Arlington, VA.

5. “Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)—State of the Art, Potential, and Implications,” (March 23, 2011), Washington, D.C.; sponsored by Atlantic Council; over 35 attendees from intelligence community, industry, U.S. State Department, AAAS, United Nations, universities, Department of Defense, etc.; sponsored by Atlantic Council.

6. “The Second Wave of Wireless Communications: A Game Changer for Global Development?” (October 29, 2010), Washington, D.C.; sponsored by Atlantic Council; speakers Prof. Jeff Reed of Virginia Tech and Mr. James Neel of Cognitive Radio Technologies.

7. ICTAS Research Day (September 28, 2010), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, funded by ICTAS, 265 people in attendance, emcee for all keynotes and talks.

8. “Nano-Bio: The Next Transformative Convergence” (October 14-15, 2009), Roanoke, VA, Humboldt Kolleg, funded jointly by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the National Science Foundation (NSF), 56 attendees, including keynote Dr. Ferid Murad, MD, PhD (Director at Institute of Molecular Medicine, Professor; The University of Texas Medical School at Houston; 1998 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine); http://www.cpe.vt.edu/avhkolleg_nanobio/index.html

9. “Webinar: Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety” (Nano-EHS), (May 6 & 28, 2009), in collaboration with United States Measurement System (USMS) office of NIST, approximately 15 people in attendance.

10. “Nano-EHS Workshop” (June 9-10, 2008), Crystal City, VA, in collaboration with United States Measurement System (USMS) office of NIST, approximately 100 people in attendance, http://ceramics.org/meetings/meetings-archives/environmental-health-safety-issues-in-nanomaterials


Tom Campbell

21

FUNDING RECORD (2004 to present) Funding Agencies National—DoE, NSF, DoD, NASA, NIH, NIST, ORNL, DETEC, Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS) at Virginia Tech, College of Engineering at Virginia Tech, CIT—Center for Innovation Technology in the Commonwealth of Virginia, New America Foundation

International—Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD—Deutsche Akedemischer Austauschungsdienst), Technical University of Munich

Funding Awarded (PI=Principal Investigator) Proposing team (PI=Craig Woolsey), “A Proposal for an Autonomous Systems Technology, Economics, & Policy Survey for the Commonwealth of Virginia,” (October 1, 2013), Commonwealth of Virginia, $139,798, Campbell share $23,766.

PI, ICTAS Proposal for Postdoctoral Associate Research Funding (October 31, 2012), “Chemical Synthesis and Functionalization of Nanomaterials for Additive Manufacturing of Nano-Inks,” ICTAS, $31,209.

Talk Honorarium, (October 16, 2012), “Additive Manufacturing—Applications, Challenges, and the Future,” Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Washington, D.C., $1,500; Campbell share $1,500.

PI, Travel award from Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to support trip to Munich, Germany (October 23-27, 2012), 1,500 € ($1,900 US); Campbell share 1,500 € ($1,900 US).

PI, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Department of Energy, “Additive Manufacturing Symposium-Preparing for National Prominence in a Disruptive Technology,” Hamilton Crowne Plaza, August 20, 2012, $5,000; Campbell share=$5,000.

PI, Office of Intelligence, Department of Energy, “Additive Manufacturing Symposium-Preparing for National Prominence in a Disruptive Technology,” White House Conference Center (Truman Room), August 20, 2012, $14,541; Campbell share=$14,541.

PI, CIT Commercialization Fund, Commonwealth of Virginia, “Additive Manufacturing System for Nanocomposites,” $200,000; Campbell share=$70,000. ICTAS NCFL mini-grant; “Synthesis of CdSe Quantum Dots with Different Shapes”; 30 hours on Philips TEM-EM 420; equivalent to ~$2,500.

New America Foundation, Honorarium for writing article “Additive Manufacturing as a Disruptive Technology—Implications of Three-Dimensional Printing,” $5,000; Campbell share $5,000.

PI, CRCF Matching Funds, CIT Award from the Commonwealth of Virginia; “Chemical synthesis of square quantum dots”; $50,000; Campbell share=$37,500.

PI, Humboldt Kolleg conference support (February 24-25, 2012), “Collaboration and Networks in the 21st Century,” Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, €40,000 ($56,800 as of May 2011); Campbell share=$56,800.


Tom Campbell

22

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bessel Award to Prof. Kathy Lu, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, $66,690; introduced and provided guidance on the program to Dr. Lu.

PI, Travel award to invitation-only conference, “New Frontiers: Shifting Trends in the Global Research Landscape and their Impact on Researchers´ Career Patterns,” New York City, New York, October 20-21, 2011, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, $450.

NSF I/U-CRC, “Center for Energy Harvesting and Materials Systems,” PI=Shashank Priya, $275,000, wrote the section on ICTAS and edited the proposal

Virginia Tech-NIST Water Workshop, PI=Marc Edwards, $10,000; helped coordinate the proposal with NIST

Private anonymous donor to establish a Virginia Tech center, $5,000,000; co-authored the business plan that clinched the signing of the award Co-PI, Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS), “3D Printing with Nano-inks for Physical Cryptography,” ICTAS Junior Faculty Collaborative Proposal, PI=Chris Williams, Co-PIs=Kathy Lu, Tom Campbell, Olga Ivanova, $118,810 over two years.

PI, International Graduate School of Science and Engineering (IGSSE) at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and ICTAS at VT joint proposal, “Nanophotonic Hardware for Physical Cryptography and Security,” support for 36 months for one German Ph.D. student, including funds for consumables, travel to Blacksburg, and project management, PIs: Jonathan Finley, IGSSE / TUM, Tom Campbell; €125,000 within Germany only (=~$179,000 as of May 2011; no direct financial benefit to Virginia Tech, but the German Ph.D. student works a few months each year in Blacksburg); Campbell share=$179,000.

PI, Virginia Tech Pratt Funding, $2,000 for Ph.D. student international travel

PI, ICTAS two-year postdoctoral associate support, “Three-dimensional printing of nano-inks,” $82,597

PI, DAAD Information Tour 2009, “Regenerative Energies in Germany: State of the Art and Opportunities for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education,” ca. $5,000 award for travel support during a 7-day science tour of Germany, 6-12 December 2009

PI, Phase II NSF STTR, “A carbon nanotube metrology system for counterfeit detection,” $500,000 (subcontract to Virginia Tech=$165,000); Campbell share=$500,000.

PI, Contract Guest Researcher, United States Measurement System (USMS), National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), to research measurement needs for nanotechnology environmental, health and safety, $112,000; Campbell share=$112,000.

PI, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Humboldt Kolleg (conference support, “Nano-Bio: The Next Transformative Convergence”); $21,000; Campbell share=$18,000.

PI, NSF Nano and Bio Mechanics Program, supplemental conference support, $14,175; Campbell share=$12,758.

PI; “Carbon nanohorns for biotechnology research (in particular: irreversible electroporation for cancer treatment),” CNMS at ORNL, providing no-cost access to ORNL facilities


Tom Campbell

23

PI; Phase I National Institutes of Health (NIH) STTR; “A novel nanomaterials approach for cancer imaging and therapeutic treatment”; $400,000

PI, Phase I National Science Foundation (NSF) STTR; “A carbon nanotube metrology system for industry and research environments”; $150,000

PI, Contract Guest Researcher; United States Measurement Systems (USMS) Group; National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST); Gaithersburg, MD; $140,000

PI, Phase I Department of Defense (DoD) SBIR; “Novel substrate materials for LWIR and VLWIR detectors”; $100,000

Co-PI, DETEC, National Institute of Standards and Technology, $3,000

Conference travel award, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, EuroNanoForum 2007, ~$1,000

PI, “Toward a Better Understanding of Ge-Si Crystal Growth and its Implications for Semiconductor Processing,” Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellowship, one year of postdoctoral associate support plus four months intensive language training in Germany.

PI, NASA Graduate Student Researcher Program Fellowship, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, three years of full stipend, including tuition and fees, for Ph.D. at the University of Colorado at Boulder

SERVICE RECORD AT VIRGINIA TECH

• Engagement Leadership Council, Virginia Tech, 2014 to present.

• College of Engineering International Programs Faculty Committee, Virginia Tech, 2014 to present.

• Board of the Center for Digital Research and Scholarship (CDRS), Virginia Tech, 2013 to present.

• Sustainable Water Infrastructure Management (SWIM) Center, Industrial Advisory Board, Virginia Tech, 2013 to present.

• Program manager on ICTAS-ICAT joint request for proposal (RFP) for awards on science, technology and the arts

• Program manager on ISCE-ICTAS joint request for proposal (RFP) for awards on ethics of autonomous vehicles

• Virginia Innovation Partnership, i6 Program proposal review panel and commercialization mentor (awards funded by Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration), 2013 to present.

• ICTAS Center for e-Design, NSF I/U-CRC Industry Advisory Board, 2011 to present.

• ICTAS Center for Energy Harvesting and Materials Science (CEHMS), NSF I/U-CRC Industry Advisory Board, 2011 to present.


Tom Campbell

24

• Special Research Faculty Task Force Committee (co-Chair of Career Advancement & Job Security Sub-committee), Virginia Tech, 2011, task force delivered final report to the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) and closed.

• Outreach Council, Virginia Tech, 2010 to 2014.

• Economic Development Leadership Council, Virginia Tech, 2010 to present.

• High-Performance Computing (HPC) Committee, Virginia Tech, 2010 to present.

• VTTI Green Highway Initiative Advisory Board, Virginia Tech, 2010 to present.


UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE … · Wohlers Report 2012, 2013—Additive Manufacturing...

Documents

Transcript of UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE … · Wohlers Report 2012, 2013—Additive Manufacturing...