Corning Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2020000470 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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.
15/373,882 12/09/2016 Daniel Boughton SP14-075A 8704
22928 7590 12/28/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
HERRING, LISA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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 DANIEL BOUGHTON
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, 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 16–25. 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 Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed July 8, 2019, 1.
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to methods for material processing using a
plasma thermal source, in particular for processing glass batch material by
means of atmospheric thermal plasma. Specification (“Spec.”) filed
December 9, 2016, ¶¶ 1, 7.2
Sole independent claim 16, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A method, comprising:
providing a plasma containment vessel having at least
first and second opposing wall members defining an inner
volume, an inlet end, and an opposing outlet end;
feeding glass batch material into the inlet of the plasma
containment vessel in such a way that the glass batch material is
dispensed as a substantially planar sheet of glass batch material
particles into the inner volume of the plasma containment
vessel;
directing one or more sources of plasma gas into the
inner volume of the plasma containment vessel in such a way
that the plasma gas enters the plasma containment vessel as at
least one substantially planar sheet of plasma gas; and
applying an alternating electric field to the plasma gas to
facilitate production of a plasma plume within the inner volume
of the plasma containment vessel, wherein the plasma plume is
of a substantially planar sheet shape having dimensions
sufficient to envelope the planar sheet of glass batch material
particles, and is of sufficient thermal energy to cause the glass
batch material to thermally react.

2 This Decision also cites to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated
October 10, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated August 22, 2019,
and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 22, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Koinuma et al.
(“Koinuma”)
US 5,198,724 Mar. 30, 1993
Barankova et al.
(“Barankova”)
US 6,351,075 B1 Feb. 26, 2002
Koulik et al. (“Koulik”) US 2004/0238345 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
Ueda US 2012/0321895 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
Maher Boulos (“Boulos”) Plasma Power Can
Make Better
Powders, Metal
Powder Report,
metal-powder.net,
Elsevier Ltd., 16–21.
May 2004

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 16–18 and 23–25 as unpatentable over Ueda in view
of Koulik and Koinuma;
2. Claims 19–21 as unpatentable over Ueda in view of Koulik
and Koinuma, and further in view of Barankova;3 and
3. Claim 22 as unpatentable over Ueda in view of Koulik and
Koinuma, and further in view of Boulos.

3 The Examiner omitted Ueda from the rejection statements for Rejections 2
and 3. See Final Act. 5, 6; Ans. 3. However, the Examiner includes Ueda in
the body of these rejections, indicating that the Examiner’s omission was
inadvertent. Importantly, Appellant recognizes that the Examiner intended to
include Ueda in these rejections. See Appeal Br. 35–36, 38. Accordingly, we
have corrected the statements for Rejections 2 and 3 to reflect the
Examiner’s intent.
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in 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.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. Therefore, we
affirm the stated rejections for substantially the fact findings, reasoning, and
conclusion of obviousness set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, which we
adopt as our own. We offer the following for emphasis only.
For purposes of this appeal, to the extent that the claims on appeal are
separately argued, we will address them separately consistent with
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Rejection 1: Obviousness of claim 16–18 and 23–25
The Examiner finds that Ueda discloses a method substantially as
recited in claim 16, except wherein the glass batch material is fed as a
substantially planar sheet into an inner volume of the plasma vessel defined
by first and second opposing wall members. Final Act. 3. However, the
Examiner finds that Koulik discloses, as an alternative to a cylindrical
plasma vessel, a parallelepipedal vessel having opposing walls 19, 21
defining an inner volume. Id. The Examiner determines that “one skilled in
the art could envision an alternative plasma reactor configuration with a
planar geometry with opposing walls, since it is a known alternative plasma
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

5
reactor shape, as taught by Koulik.”4 Id. The Examiner further determines
that
with the alternative planar geometry, one skilled in the art could
envision at least a first and second opposing walls defining an
inner volume, feeding glass batch material in such a way that
the glass batch material is dispensed as a substantially planar
sheet of glass batch material into the inner volume of the
plasma containment vessel and directing one or more sources of
plasma gas into the inner volume of the plasma containment
vessel, in such a way that the plasma gas enters the plasma
containment vessel as at least one substantially planar sheet of
plasma gas, and wherein the plasma plume is of a substantially
planar sheet shape having dimensions sufficient to envelope the
planar sheet of glass batch materials, and is of sufficient energy
to cause the glass batch material to thermally react wherein the
thermal reaction includes at least partially melting the glass
batch material and/or at least partially melting the glass batch
materials to form substantially homogeneous, spheroid shaped
glass intermediate particles, based on the combination of Ueda
and Koulik.
Id. at 3–4.
In addition, the Examiner relies on both Koulik and Koinuma, without
dispute, to establish that applying an alternating current in Ueda’s method in
order to create the plasma plume via an induced alternating electric field
would have been obvious. Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that the prior art, primarily Koulik, fails to teach or
suggest feeding a substantially planar sheet of glass batch material into the

4 We note that the Examiner appears to state an improper standard for
obviousness as what an ordinary artisan “could envision,” rather than what
an ordinary artisan “would have” done based on the combined prior art
teachings. However, we hold this error to be harmless because the Examiner
otherwise applies the correct analytical framework for obviousness and, in
this instance, the resulting determination of obviousness remains changed.
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

6
plasma vessel (Appeal Br. 5–17), or directing one or more sources of plasma
gas into the plasma vessel in such a way that the gas enters the vessel as at
least one substantially planar sheet of plasma gas (id. at 17–26), or wherein
the produced plasma plume is of a substantially planar sheet shape having
dimensions sufficient to envelope the planar sheet of glass batch material
particles (id. at 26–30). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that
Koulik discloses a plurality of rows of longitudinal channels 17 in filter 6.
Id. at 11. Further, Appellant contends that even if Koulik’s channels 17 are
arranged in rows, Koulik does not suggest that these channels operate by
feeding the cores (particles) into the plasma vessel in such a way that the
cores are dispensed as a substantially planar sheet. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner finds, Koulik discloses that the plasma reactor vessel may have a
substantially parallelepipedal shape and depicts such a construction with a
planar geometry. Koulik ¶¶ 27, 28; Fig. 1. As the Examiner also finds,
Koulik’s vessel is shown in Figure 1 with a rectangular longitudinal cross-
section, suggesting that the vessel has a rectangular parallelepipedal shape.
Id. Moreover, Koulik discloses a honeycomb-like filter 6 with longitudinal
channels 17 aligned along direction D of the gas flow through the plasma
reactor for imparting substantially uniform longitudinal velocity to the
core/gas mixture fed/directed to the plasma vessel’s inner volume. Id. ¶¶ 36,
37. The Examiner finds that Koulik’s channels 17, arranged in a honeycomb
configuration, would have been understood as providing aligned multiple
channels suggesting multiple rows of channel. Ans. 6. As the Examiner
suggests, each row of channels feeds a substantially planar sheet of cores
and plasma gas into the plasma vessel. We note that claim 16 does not
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

7
exclude multiple substantially planar sheets of glass particles and plasma gas
being fed simultaneously into the plasma vessel, nor does claim 16 exclude
the particles being mixed and dispensed in the same planar sheets as the
plasma gas. Additionally, given Koulik’s parallelepiped-shaped plasma
vessel, selecting an appropriate number of rows of filter channels would
have been within the ordinary skill in the art, including a single row, as
Koulik does not limit the dimensions or number of channels of the plasma
vessel. Also, in feeding mixed cores and plasma gas through each row of
channels into the plasma vessel as substantially planar sheets of cores and
gas, Koulik’s plasma plume would likewise have a substantially planar sheet
shape whose dimensions are sufficient to envelope the substantially planar
sheets of cores and gas.
Appellant also asserts that Koulik’s teaching of a parallelepipedal
plasma vessel does not suggest feeding the cores into the vessel as a
substantially planar sheet of core particles (Appeal Br. 9, 10), nor suggest
directing plasma gas into the plasma vessel as a substantially planar sheet of
plasma gas (id. at 21), nor suggest a plasma plume having a substantially
planar sheet shape and sufficient to envelope the planar sheet of glass batch
material particles (id. at 28). However, Appellant fails to explain why
Koulik’s parallelepipedal construction, and especially the honeycomb
arrangement of channels 17 in filter 6, as discussed above, does not suggest
feeding the cores and plasma gas into the vessel as substantially planar
sheets of cores and gas to create substantially planar sheet shaped plasma
plumes.
Appellant further argues that there are ways of feeding the cores and
plasma gas into Koulik’s plasma reactor other than as substantially planar
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

8
sheets of cores and plasma gas. Appeal Br. 15, 23. Appellant proffers, as an
example, that the cores and that plasma gas may be fed into an inlet of
Koulik’s plasma reactor in such a way that the cores and plasma gas are
dispensed in a shape other than a substantially planar sheet of core particles
and other than a substantially planar sheet of plasma gas. Id. at 15–16, 23–
24. Similarly, Appellant argues that Koulik’s plasma medium (gas) may be
created to have a shape other than a substantially planar sheet shape and/or
to have dimensions that are not sufficient to envelope a planar sheet of core
particles. Id. at 30. Appellant contends, therefore, that these alternative ways
of feeding the cores and plasma gas, and alternative ways to create the
plasma plume weigh against the inevitable presence of feeding the cores and
plasma gas as substantially planar sheets and creating a substantially planar
sheet-shaped plasma plume. Id. at 16, 24, 30.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error because Appellant
fails to identify, much less explain, any of the alleged other ways that the
cores and plasma gas may be fed into the plasma vessel, or that the plasma
plume may be created. Instead, Appellant merely alleges that there are other
ways without identifying any other way, especially another way consistent
with Koulik’s use of a honeycomb-like filter having longitudinal channels. It
is true that Koulik identifies another plasma vessel arrangement involving
coaxial cylindrical walls. Koulik ¶ 29. But the Examiner did not rely on this
embodiment in the proposed combination.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that the claimed “substantially
planar” configurations are not simply parallelepiped, but are defined as
configurations where two dimensions are relatively larger than the third
dimension. Reply Br. A5. Appellant refers to the description of an example
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

9
in the Specification wherein the material inlet and outlet may be elongate (in
the form of a slot) in the X direction to dispense a substantially planar, sheet-
like accumulation of glass batch material particles into the inner volume of
the plasma vessel. Id. at A6; see also Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant similarly
refers to the description of this example, wherein a plurality of gas outlets
may be disposed along the peripheral edges of the batch material outlet to
direct the plasma gas as at least one planar sheet into the inner volume of the
plasma vessel. Reply Br. A6–7; see also Appeal Br. 17–18, 27–28. As such,
Appellant urges that the Specification details the specific configuration and
steps that can be utilized to obtain the specific claimed substantially planar
glass batch material particles, plasma gas, and plasma plume, rather than
merely disclosing a plasma containment vessel that is substantially planar in
shape. Reply Br. A7.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of reversible error because
claim 16 is not limited to the specific embodiment disclosed in the
Specification. Claim 16 does not recite that glass batch material inlet and/or
outlet are elongate (or in the shape of a slot), nor that two of their
dimensions are relatively larger than the third dimension. Nor is claim 16
limited to a plurality of gas outlets disposed along the peripheral edges of the
batch material outlet. Also, although Appellant asserts that the claimed
“substantially planar” is defined as a configuration where two dimensions
are relatively larger than the third dimension, the Specification description is
exemplary, rather than definitional. Spec. ¶ 34 (“The material inlet 232 and
the material outlet 234 may be elongate (in the form of a slot) in the X
direction such that the glass batch material 10 is dispensed into the inner
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

10
volume 218 as a substantially planar, sheet-like accumulation of glass batch
material particles 10 (see also FIG. 4).” (emphasis added)).
Appellant does not separately argue claims 17 and 23–25.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 16,
17, and 22–25.
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 16, and further requires “the least one
planar sheet of plasma gas includes two substantially planar sheets of plasma
gas directed both toward the outlet end of the plasma containment vessel and
toward one another in order to envelop the planar sheet of glass batch
material particles.”
The Examiner finds that Koulik provides multiple substantially planar
sheets of plasma gas formed by filter 6 that are directed both toward the
outlet end of the plasma containment vessel and toward one another in order
to envelope the planar sheet of glass batch materials. Final Act. 4.
Appellant disagrees. Appeal Br. 34. Appellant argues that Koulik does
not suggest in any way that either the carrier gas or the treatment (plasma)
gas is provided in a substantially planar sheet. Id. Appellant notes the
positioning of carrier gas inlet 10 and treatment gas inlets 11, and contends
that Koulik fails to mention anything about these gases being directed to
envelope a planar sheet of glass batch material particles. Id. Appellant also
notes that Koulik fails to indicate that filter channels 17 cause these gases to
perform this function. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because, as
discussed above, Koulik’s plurality of rows of channels necessarily provide
a plurality of substantially planar sheets of mixed cores and plasma gas.
Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

11
Each planar sheet necessarily provides plasma gas that envelopes the cores
mixed therein, and the outer rows of channels direct the core and plasma gas
mixture in a direction toward the outlet of the plasma vessel and envelope
inner rows of channels. As such, Appellant has not identified reversible error
in the obviousness rejection of claim 18.
Rejection 2: Obviousness of claims 19–21
The Examiner rejects claims 19–21 as unpatentable over Ueda in view
of Koulik and Koinuma, and further in view of Barankova.
Appellant argues that Barankova fails to remedy the alleged
deficiencies of the combination of Ueda, Koulik, and Koinuma argued with
regard to claim 16 from which claims 19–21 depend. Appeal Br. 36.
However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded of any deficiencies in
the combination of Ueda, Koulik, and Koinuma. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed above with regard to claim 16, we likewise sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection as to claims 19–21.
Rejection 3: Obviousness of claim 22
The Examiner rejects claim 22 as unpatentable over Ueda in view of
Koulik and Koinuma, and further in view of Boulos.
Appellant argues that Boulos fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies
of the combination of Ueda, Koulik, and Koinuma argued with regard to
claim 16 from which claims 22 depends. Appeal Br. 39. However, as
discussed above, we are not persuaded of any deficiencies in the
combination of Ueda, Koulik, and Koinuma. Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed above with regard to claim 16, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection as to claim 22.

Appeal 2020-000470
Application 15/373,882

12
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Final Office Action and Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 16–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–18, 23–
25
103 Ueda, Koulik,
Koinuma
16–18, 23–
25

19–21 103 Ueda, Koulik,
Koinuma, Barankova
19–21
22 103 Ueda, Koulik,
Koinuma, Boulos
22
Overall
Outcome
16–25

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