Amanda Lee. Billings et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 22, 2019

14107259 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/107,259 12/16/2013 Amanda Lee Billings SP12-394 2553
22928 7590 07/22/2019
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
HOFFMANN, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2019 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)
1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMANDA LEE BILLINGS, LIAM RUAN DE PAOR, ROBERT
BRETT DESORCIE, ROBERT ARNOLD KNOWLTON, and
PUSHKAR TANDON
____________

Appeal 2018-004812
Application 14/107,259
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

This is in response to a Request, filed June 28, 2019, for rehearing of
our Decision dated May 1, 2019.
Appellants argue that the Board misapprehended or overlooked
technical teachings of the cited U.S. Patent No. 7,089,766 to Burke (Req. 2).
Appellants contend that Burke’s embodiments regarding a selective
diffusion layer without a post-heating step would not read on the relevant
limitations of claim 1 (Req. 2). Appellants contend that claim 1 requires that
Appeal 2018-004812
Application 14/107,259

2
the selective diffusion layer as it is initially deposited has a normalized
density of less than or equal to 0.91 (Req. 2). Appellants contend that
Burke’s column 24 and column 2 disclosure relied upon by the Examiner
and the Board discloses vitrifying the layer without applying a subsequent
heating step (Req. 3). Appellants contend that since Burke’s layer is
vitrified it cannot have a normalized density of less than or equal to 0.91
(Req. 3). Appellants argue that vitrification requires fully condensing a
material, which would result in a normalized density at or near 1.0 (Req. 3).
Appellants contend that Burke’s column 2 and column 24 disclosures relied
upon in the Decision concern fully condensed glass having normalized
densities at or near 1.0 (Req. 3). Appellants contend that the well-known
definition of “vitrify” would not be consistent with a normalized density of
less than 0.91 (Req. 3). Appellants argue that vitrified must be construed to
mean not fully or nearly fully consolidated to suggest the subject matter of
claim 1 (Req. 3).
We have fully considered Appellants’ arguments and we adhere to our
Decision. Appellants’ arguments that vitrified means fully condensed to a
normalized density of 1.0 are undermined by Burke’s disclosure in column
15, lines 61 to 65, that the term glassy in the context of the glassy barrier
layer encompasses both fully vitrified and partially vitrified glass (col. 15, ll.
61–63). Burke further discloses that the glassy barrier layer needs only to be
sufficiently vitrified (glassy) to substantially minimize migration of the
dopant and/or water (col. 15, ll. 63–65). Burke’s disclosure that the glassy
barrier layer may be partially vitrified would include densities less than 1.0.
Appellants do not address the specific findings on pages 5 to 6 of the
Decision regarding Burke’s column 15 disclosure.
Appeal 2018-004812
Application 14/107,259

3
Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Burke’s
consolidation step which vitrifies the as-deposited glass would have resulted
in a normalized density of 1.0. As stated in the Decision, we find that the
Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Burke
discloses an as-formed glassy barrier layer in an optical fiber preform where
the density would have been optimized to a value within the claimed range
in order to avoid dopant and/or water diffusion.
We adhere to our decision for the reasons discussed above.
Appellants’ rehearing request is denied.

DENIED