CORNING INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

2019004778 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/707,106 05/08/2015 Jaymin Amin SP14-116T 8959
22928 7590 06/30/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, NANCY ROSENBERG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAYMIN AMIN, SHANDON DEE HART,
KARL WILLIAM KOCH III, ERIC LOUIS NULL, XU OUYANG,
CHARLES ANDREW PAULSON, and JAMES JOSEPH PRICE
____________________

Appeal 2019-004778
Application 14/707,106
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
August 28, 2018 decision finally rejecting claims 1–8, 10–12, 14–19, 21, 24,
25, 27, 29–31, 33, and 35–39 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Corning Incorporated as the real party
in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-004778
Application 14/707,106

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure generally relates to durable anti-reflective
articles and methods for making them, and more particularly to articles with
multi-layer anti-reflective coatings exhibiting abrasion resistance, low
reflectivity, and colorless transmittance and/or reflectance (Spec. ¶ 2).
Details of the claimed article are set forth in representative claim 1, which is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. An article comprising:
a substrate having a major surface; and
an anti-reflective coating having a physical thickness of
from about 0.3 μm to about 1 μm disposed on the major
surface, the anti-reflective coating comprising an anti-
reflective surface, wherein the anti-reflective coating
comprises a plurality of layers, the plurality of layers
comprising at least one low RI layer, and at least one
high RI layer, and wherein a total physical thickness of
the high RI layers is >70% of the total physical thickness
of the anti-reflective coating,
wherein the article exhibits a maximum hardness of
about 10 GPa or greater as measured by a Berkovich
Indenter Hardness Test along an indentation depth of
about 50 nm or greater;
wherein the article exhibits:
a single side average visible photopic light
reflectance of about 2% or less, and
a b* value, in reflectance, in the range from
about - 5 to about 1 as measured on the anti-
reflective surface only at all incidence illumination
angles in the range from about 0 degrees to about
60 degrees.
Appeal 2019-004778
Application 14/707,106

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29–31, 33, and
35–39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Reymond2 in
view of Lu,3 as evidenced by Suzuki.4
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Reymond in view of Lu, as evidenced by Suzuki, and further in view of
Watanabe.5
3. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Reymond in view of Lu, as evidenced by Suzuki, and further in view of
Lee.6
4. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Reymond in view of Lu, as evidenced by Suzuki, and further in view of
Suzuki.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the independent claims together (see, Appeal Br.
12). Accordingly, we will focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 1
over Reymond in view of Lu, as evidenced by Suzuki.
The Examiner finds that Reymond discloses an anti-reflective film
comprising high and low refractive index layers but does not disclose
thicknesses for the layers such that the high refractive index layers would be
at least 70% of the physical thickness of the film (Final Act. 5, citing

2 Reymond et al., US 2009/0104385 A1, published April 23, 2009.
3 Lu et al., US 2007/0030569 A1, published February 8, 2007.
4 Suzuki et al., US 2010/0027383 A1, published February 4, 2010.
5 Watanabe et al., US 2009/0052041 A1, published February 26, 2009.
6 Lee et al., US 2010/0028607 A1, published February 4, 2010.
Appeal 2019-004778
Application 14/707,106

4
Reymond Abstract). The Examiner further finds that Lu teaches the addition
of a middle refractive index layer—which, according to the Examiner, may
be considered a high refractive index layer because its refractive index
(1.63–2.05) is greater than the low refractive index layer of Reymond (1.40–
1.55)—to optimize the overall performance of the broad band anti-reflection
coating (Final Act. 5). Therefore, according to the Examiner, it would have
been obvious to include Lu’s middle refractive index layer—comprising
aluminum oxynitride—in Reymond’s antireflection coating to achieve a
coating which is durable and has good antireflection characteristics (id.,
citing Lu ¶ 29). Doing so would mean that the total thickness of the high
refractive index layers would exceed 70%, as required by claim 1 (Final Act.
5–6).
Appellant contends that the teachings of the references as a whole
would have suggested to a person of skill in the art not to add Lu’s layer to
Reymond’s stack, but instead to keep the total thickness of Reymond’s stack
the same, so that the coating resulting from the combination would still not
have the requisite percentage of the high refractive index material (Appeal
Br. 13–14). This is because, according to Appellant, a person of skill in the
art
would not have added high index material thickness to the
stack, because Reymond specifically teaches that when a layer
(either high or low index layer) includes a superposition of
layers (having different materials) such is acceptable as long as
“. . . each of [the sub-layers] satisfies the indicated refractive
index and in which the sum of their geometrical thicknesses
also remains the value indicated for the layer in question.”
(Appeal Br. 14, citing Reymond ¶ 25, emphasis in original).
Appeal 2019-004778
Application 14/707,106

5
Appellant further contends that because Lu’s medium index layer has
a reflective index which largely overlaps with Reymond’s high index
materials, if Lu’s medium index layer were incorporated into Reymond’s
stack, it would be immediately adjacent to one of Reymond’s high index
layers, and that nothing in Lu suggests that its medium index layer could be
the top layer on an anti-reflective stack (Appeal Br. 14).
The Examiner responds by finding that the refractive index of Lu’s
middle index material—aluminum oxynitride—is different from Reymond’s
high index material, and that a person of skill in the art would not
necessarily have sought to replace one of Reymond’s high index layers with
Lu’s middle index layer, but instead would have added Lu’s layer to garner
the properties touted by Lu: durability and good anti-reflection
characteristics (Ans. 4–6; Lu ¶ 29).
Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence set forth by
Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the preponderance of the
evidence of record supports the obviousness rejection, essentially for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer. We
add the following for emphasis.
As explained by the Examiner, Reymond’s system is not limited to
only four layers. Reymond states that its invention “relates to an
antireflection multilayer having at least one sequence of four alternating
layers, namely layers of high and low refractive indices.” Reymond ¶ 16.
This description does not exclude a 5-layer system. A system in which Lu’s
middle index material was placed on top of a sequence of layers as shown
Appeal 2019-004778
Application 14/707,106

6
below, would still meet the general structure described by Reymond (at least
4 layers, alternating high and low index layers):
Lu’s Middle index layer
Low index layer
High index layer
Low index layer
High index layer
SUBSTRATE

Appellant also argues (Reply Br. 3) that Reymond suggests that a four
layer arrangement is preferred, relying on Reymond’s statement that:
The best results and compromises between the various
properties desired (such as described previously) have
especially been obtained when at least one of the geometrical
thicknesses and/or one of the indices of the four layers of the
multilayer according to the invention have been chosen from
the following intervals.
(Reymond ¶ 26). However, this passage does not state that 4 layers are
preferred, only that the 4 layers which make up the preferred
high/low/high/low sequence should have the recited properties.
While Appellant correctly notes that the refractive index for Lu’s
aluminum oxynitride layer largely overlaps with the refractive index of
Reymond’s high index materials, the Examiner has identified an
independent reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
added the aluminum oxynitride layer to Reymond’s stack (i.e., that it would
impart durability and good anti-reflection characteristics). Once that
combination was made, the stack would then have the claimed percentage of
high index material.
Accordingly, Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the
rejection. Because Appellant relies on the same arguments with respect to
Appeal 2019-004778
Application 14/707,106

7
the rejections of dependent claims 5, 16, and 17, we affirm those rejections
for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–8, 10–
15, 18, 19, 21,
24, 25, 27,
29–31, 33,
35–39
103 Reymond, Lu,
Suzuki
1–4, 6–8,
10–15, 18,
19, 21, 24,
25, 27, 29–
31, 33, 35–
39

5 103 Reymond, Lu,
Suzuki, Watanabe
5
16 103 Reymond, Lu,
Suzuki, Lee
16
17 103 Reymond, Lu,
Suzuki
17
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–12,
14–19, 21,
24, 25, 27,
29–31, 33,
35–39

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED