Corning Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 5, 2020

2019006361 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 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.
14/077,922 11/12/2013 Gregory Clifford Gagnon SP12-328 9234
22928 7590 06/05/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
DONG, LIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2020 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 GREGORY CLIFFORD GAGNON,
YU-CHANG HONG, and MENG-KAI SHIH

Appeal 2019-006361
Application 14/077,922
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7–11 and 14–17. Claims 1–6, 12, 13,
and 18–21 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Corning
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006361
Application 14/077,922

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for separating a glass sheet
from a glass ribbon. Claim 7 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
7. A method for separating a glass sheet from a glass ribbon,
the method comprising:

moving the glass ribbon along a conveyance pathway;

directing the glass ribbon through a separation apparatus
comprising a support nosing and a scoring device, wherein the
conveyance pathway is positioned between the support nosing, a
passive support device, and the scoring device, the passive
support device comprising a plurality of contact points
individually coupled to a plurality of air cylinders;

engaging a nosing material of the support nosing with at least a
portion of a first surface of the glass ribbon, the nosing material
directly attached to a beam, the beam supporting the nosing
material along a length of the nosing material;

engaging a second surface of the glass ribbon with the plurality
of contact points;

engaging the scoring device with the second surface of the glass
ribbon along an intended line of separation, wherein the intended
line of separation lies along the support nosing;

flattening the glass ribbon against the nosing material with the
scoring device while maintaining the beam in a linearly fixed
position, whereby the beam in the linearly fixed position
maintains the nosing material in a flat orientation;

traversing the scoring device over the second surface of the glass
ribbon on the intended line of separation to introduce a partial
vent in the second surface of the glass ribbon, wherein:

Appeal 2019-006361
Application 14/077,922

3
the nosing material is maintained in the flat orientation
with the beam as the scoring device is traversed over the
second surface of the glass ribbon;

the nosing material has a sufficiently low coefficient of
friction relative to the first surface of the glass such that
lateral edges of the glass ribbon slide against the nosing
material in a lateral direction and the first surface of the
glass ribbon contacts the nosing material as the scoring
device traverses over the second surface of the glass
ribbon; and

the nosing material has a sufficiently high hardness such
that the partial vent extends across the entire width of the
glass ribbon; and

subsequent to engaging the scoring device with the second
surface of the glass ribbon and flattening the glass ribbon,
applying a bending moment to the glass ribbon to propagate the
partial vent through a thickness of the glass ribbon.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu
(US 2011/0277507 A1, published Nov. 17, 2011) in view of Chalk (US
2008/0276646 A1, published Nov. 13, 2008);
(ii) claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lu in view of Chalk and Onzuka (US 5,844,051, issued Dec. 1, 1998);
(iii) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu
in view of Chalk and Cox (US 2006/0261118 A1, published Nov. 23, 2006);
and
(iv) claims 11 and 14–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lu in view of Chalk, Onzuka, and Cox.
Appeal 2019-006361
Application 14/077,922

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 7--§ 103(a)--Lu/Chalk
The Examiner finds that Lu discloses all elements of method claim 7,
with the exception of providing a passive support device comprising a
plurality of contact points individually coupled to a plurality of air cylinders,
and the claimed step of engaging a second surface of a glass ribbon with the
plurality of contact points. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner cites to Chalk as
disclosing a method for separating a glass sheet from a glass ribbon, the
apparatus for which includes passive support device 330a comprising a
plurality of contact points 334 individually coupled to a plurality of air
cylinders 332, and a step of engaging a second surface of a glass ribbon with
the plurality of contact points. Id. at 5, citing Chalk, Fig. 3K and ¶ 30. The
Examiner identifies that paragraph 30 of Chalk discloses that its passive
support device aids in minimizing motion of the glass sheet. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to add a passive
support device of the type disclosed in Chalk to the device and method of
Lu, to engage a second surface of the glass ribbon with the contact points of
the passive support device, and that “[d]oing so would allow the passive
support device to minimize the motion of the glass sheet and help reduce the
stress within the glass sheet.” Id. at 5–6, citing Chalk, Abstract.
Appellant argues that the proposed modification to Lu is redundant of
components in Lu that perform the same function, i.e., minimizing the
motion of the glass ribbon as the ribbon is scored in the process of forming
glass sheets from the ribbon. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant explains that Lu
employs a nosing having a vacuum system operating in concert therewith to
create pressure zones to position and support a glass ribbon at a second
Appeal 2019-006361
Application 14/077,922

5
surface thereof, opposite a first surface across which scoring device traverses
to score or vent the first surface. Id. at 19–20. Appellant points out that, in
Chalk, the passive support structure cited by the Examiner performs the
same function as does the vacuum system and pressure zones of Lu, i.e.,
applies a force against the glass ribbon, pushing the glass ribbon against a
flexible beam, with the result that motion and vibration in the glass caused
by the scoring process are minimized. Id. at 20. As such, Appellant argues,
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reason to modify Lu as
proposed by the Examiner, because adding a passive support device as
disclosed in Chalk would be redundant. Id.
The Examiner responds that “[a]dding the passive support device of
Chalk would provide additional vibration reduction, therefore would not be
redundant.” Ans. 3. Appellant responds that “the Office provides no
evidence or argument to support the claim that the passive support device of
Chalk would provide ‘additional vibration reduction’ and there is no
teaching in either reference that indicates such an assertion is true.” Reply
Br. 2. Appellant correctly notes that Lu is silent on this point, and that
Chalk provides no indication that its passive support device would be a
useful addition to a device that already has multiple components designed to
keep a glass ribbon positioned against a support nosing and to thereby
reduce vibration. Id.
Appellant has the better position here. Whereas the Examiner
reiterates in the Answer that “the combination of Lu in view of Chalk is
adding only the passive support device to the device of Lu” (Ans. 3), it
appears that the passive support device, as it is disclosed for use in Chalk, is
for the same purpose as that for which the vacuum system is provided in the
Appeal 2019-006361
Application 14/077,922

6
nosing of Lu. Thus, although substitution of the passive support system of
Chalk for the nosing including the vacuum system of Lu might possibly be
determined to be an obvious modification, that is not the basis for the
rejection before us, nor would that modification by itself render obvious the
entire method set forth in claim 7.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Lu
and Chalk is not sustained.

Claims 8 and 10--§ 103(a)--Lu/Chalk/Onzuka
The Examiner does not rely on Onzuka in any manner that cures the
deficiency in the proposed combination of Lu and Chalk. The rejection of
claims 8 and 10 is not sustained.

Claim 9--§ 103(a)--Lu/Chalk/Cox
The Examiner does not rely on Cox in any manner that cures the
deficiency in the proposed combination of Lu and Chalk. The rejection of
claim 9 is not sustained.

Claims 11 and 14–17--§ 103(a)--Lu/Chalk/Onzuka/Cox
Claim 11 depends indirectly from independent claim 7, and the
Examiner does not rely on Onzuka or Cox in any manner that cures the
deficiency in the proposed combination of Lu and Chalk. The rejection of
claim 11 is not sustained.
Independent claim 14 is rejected using, as a start, the same proposed
combination of Lu and Chalk as presented in rejecting claim 7. The
Examiner does not rely on Onzuka or Cox in any manner that cures the
Appeal 2019-006361
Application 14/077,922

7
deficiency noted in the proposed combination of Lu and Chalk. The
rejection of independent claim 14, and of claims 15–17 depending
therefrom, is not sustained.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 7–11 and 14–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
reversed.
CONCLUSION

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7 103(a) Lu, Chalk 7
8, 10 103(a) Lu, Chalk, Onzuka 8, 10
9 103(a) Lu, Chalk, Cox 9
11, 14–17 103(a) Lu, Chalk, Onzuka, Cox 11, 14–17
Overall
Outcome

7–11, 14–17

REVERSED