Corning Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2020

2019005416 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 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.
15/215,073 07/20/2016 Kristen L. Barefoot SP08-203A2T 9134
22928 7590 07/14/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
SAMPLE, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2020 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 KRISTEN L. BAREFOOT, JAMES JOSEPH PRICE,
JOSE MARIO QUINTAL, and RONALD LEROY STEWART
Appeal 2019-005416
Application 15/215,073
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, LILAN REN, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5–17, and 20–36. See Final Act. 2.
We have jurisdiction 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 the real party in interest as “Corning
Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005416
Application 15/215,073

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a strengthened glass article which may be
used “in handheld devices, such as mobile phones, media players, and other
devices, as well as other applications requiring transparency, high strength
and abrasion resistance.” Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 1 and independent
claim 16, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A strengthened glass article, the strengthened glass article
having a thickness t less than 0.5 mm comprising:
an alkali aluminosilicate glass having less than 50 ppm
As2O3,
an outer region having a depth of layer of at least 30 μm
and a compressive stress of at least 600 MPa,
an inner region, wherein the inner region is under a central
tension CT, and wherein CT(MPa) ≥ -15.7 (MPa/mm)t(mm) +
52.5 (Mpa) and
wherein the strengthened glass article is non-frangible
when subjected to a point impact sufficient to break the
strengthened glass article.

16. A strengthened glass article, the strengthened glass
article having a thickness t less than 0.5 mm comprising:
an alkali aluminosilicate glass having less than 50 ppm
As2O3,
an outer region having a depth of layer of at least 30 μm
and a compressive stress of at least 600 MPa,
an inner region, wherein the inner region is under a
central tension CT, and wherein -15.7 (MPa/mm)·t(mm) + 52.5
(MPa) ≤ CT(MPa) ≤ -38.7 (MPa/mm)·ln(t)(mm)+48.2 (MPa),
wherein the strengthened glass article is non-frangible
when subjected to a point impact sufficient to break the
strengthened glass article.

Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 8, 9–10).

Appeal 2019-005416
Application 15/215,073

3
REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Name Reference Date
Ellison WO 2008/143999 Al Nov. 27, 2008

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 5–17, and 20–36 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellison. Final Act. 2.

OPINION
Claims 1 & 16
Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 16 because Ellison does not teach or suggest a glass article
“having less than 50 ppm As2O3” as recited. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant,
however, acknowledges that “Ellison teaches glasses substantially free of
arsenic[.]” Id. (citing Ellison ¶ 23). Consistent with Appellant’s argument,
Ellison paragraph 23 describes an embodiment in which “the glass is
substantially free of antimony and arsenic, comprising less that [sic] about
0.05 wt% of each of the oxides of these elements.” Ellison ¶ 23 (cited in
Final Act. 3). The range of “less than 50 ppm As2O3” recited in claims 1 and
16 does not exclude a glass article free of As2O3. The record, therefore,
shows that the arsenic oxide content of the prior art glass article overlaps
with the “less than 50 ppm” range recited in claims 1 and 16. See In re
Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A prima facie case of
obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition
overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.”).
Appeal 2019-005416
Application 15/215,073

4
Appellant next argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Ellison’s glass has “an outer region having a depth of layer of at least
30 μm.” Appeal Br. 3, 5. Appellant, however, does not address the
Examiner’s finding that Ellison describes a glass having “depths of layer of
41.2, 43.1 and 45.2 μm[.]” Compare id., with Final Act. 2; Ans. 5 (citing
Ellison ¶ 33, Table 3). Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s findings with regard to this claim limitation. See In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections
. . . .”).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that the prior art glass exhibits the recited characteristics including “a
compressive stress of at least 600 MPa” and “a central tension CT, and
wherein CT(MPa) ≥ -15.7 (MPa/mm)t(mm) + 52.5 (Mpa),” as recited in
claim 1, as well as the central tension equation recited in claim 16. Appeal
Br. 4. Appellant, however, does not address the Examiner’s findings that
Ellison’s glass – having a composition identical to those claimed –
inherently possesses the claimed characteristics. Compare id., with Final
Act. 3 (citing Ellison Table 3); Ans. 5–6 (citing Ellison Table 1, Table 3).
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s findings with
regard to these claim limitations. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Appellant’s arguments with regard to SnO2 (Appeal Br. 4–6)
including those based on a declaration are unpersuasive because neither
claim 1 nor claim 16 recites SnO2. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982) (holding that “appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . .
they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims”); see also Appeal
Appeal 2019-005416
Application 15/215,073

5
Br. 5 (arguing only that “Ellison fails to teach or suggest all elements of
claims 1 and 16, because Ellison fails to establish a reasonable expectation
of success in producing the claimed strengthened glass article with less than
50 ppm As2O3 as recited in claims 1 and 16”). Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 and claim 16.
Appellant does not raise separate arguments for the rejection of claims
2, 5–15, 17, and 20–32 which depend from claim 1 or claim 16. See Appeal
Br. 4–6. We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5–15, 17, and 20–32. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claims 33–36
Claims 33 and 35 depend from claim 1. Claim 33 recites: “wherein
the alkali aluminosilicate glass is utilized in cover glass.” Claims Appendix
(Appeal Br. 11). Claim 35 recites: “An electronic device comprising the
strengthened glass article of Claim 1.” Id. Claims 34 and 36 depend from
claim 16 and recite identical limitations. Id.
With regard to the rejection of claims 33–36, Appellant argues: “As
the skilled person would know, cover glass requires glass inclusions to be
minimal, thus the skilled person would consider the glass articles produce
[sic] in the modified Ellison examples for strengthening and then use as
cover glass.” Appeal Br. 6–7.
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). Appellant’s argument does not structurally distinguish the prior
art apparatus, nor does it identify reversible error in the Examiner’s findings
in support of the rejection. Appellant’s argument is also not supported by
evidence. “Attorneys’ argument is no substitute for evidence.” Johnston v.
Appeal 2019-005416
Application 15/215,073

6
IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We sustain the rejection
of claims 33–36 as a result.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–17,
20–36
103 Ellison 1, 2, 5–17,
20–36

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED