Ex Parte Cervoni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12195002 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/195,002 08/20/2008
22928 7590 07/05/2016
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald A. Cervoni
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SP08-216 7674
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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 RONALD A. CERVONI, JAMES ANTHONY FELDMAN, and
MICHELLE YUMIKO RONCO
Appeal2014-003544
Application 12/195,002
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003544
Application 12/195,002
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1,2
Ronald A. Cervoni et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1-6,
12-15, and 17-20 as unpatentable over Sargeant (US 4,104,804; iss. Aug. 8,
1978) and Latchum (US 4,567,340; iss. Jan. 28, 1986).3 Claims 7-11 and 16
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "methods for ceramic greenware
drying during manufacture using an electrode concentrator." Spec. para. 1,
Figs. 2, 3. Claims 1, 12, and 15 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A method of drying a piece of ceramic greenware having
opposite end portions and a center portion in between and
compr1s1ng a liquid at an initial liquid content, the method
compnsmg:
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness. Ans. 15-16; see also Advisory
Act. Summary Sheet, p. 2 (mailed May 20, 2013); Appeal Br. 4.
2 The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1-20 of the subject application
on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 12/473,734 in
view of Sargeant. Final Act. 14. Appellants filed a Terminal Disclaimer in
the '734 application on April 30, 2013, in response to a double patenting
rejection based on the present Application. Reply Br. 12. Accordingly, the
Examiner's double patenting rejection is moot.
3 The Examiner includes claims 7-11 and 16 in the heading of this rejection.
See Final Act. 3. However, claims 7-11 and 16 have been cancelled. See
Amendment filed May 9, 2013.
2
Appeal2014-003544
Application 12/195,002
exposing the piece to electromagnetic radiation at a first
frequency so as to heat the end portions more than the center
portion; and then
exposing the piece to electromagnetic radiation at a second
frequency different from the first frequency so as to heat the
center portion of the piece more than the end portions.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that both Sargeant and Latchum disclose the
exposing method steps of claim 1. See Final Act. 4 (citing Sargeant, col. 3,
1. 54 - col. 4, 1. 68, Figs. 1, 2); see also id. at 9 (citing Latchum, col. 3, 11.
14--59, Fig. 1).
Appellants contend that "neither Sargeant nor Latchum taken alone or
in combination teach or suggest using first and second frequencies to heat
the center portion of the piece differently than the end portions." Appeal Br.
12; see also id. at 14--15; Reply Br. 7-8, 11-12.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Although we agree with the
Examiner that both Sargeant and Latchum disclose using first and second
frequencies, neither the portion of Sargeant cited by the Examiner nor the
portion of Latchum cited by the Examiner discloses that exposing a piece to
electromagnetic radiation at a first frequency heats the end portions more
than the center portion or that exposing that same piece to electromagnetic
radiation at a second frequency heats the center portion of the piece more
than the end portions. See Final Act. 4, 9; see also Ans. 16-25. Moreover,
the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or technical reasoning to
establish that either Sargeant or Latchum discloses that exposing a piece to
electromagnetic radiation at a first frequency would inherently result in the
end portions being heated more than the center portion or that exposing that
3
Appeal2014-003544
Application 12/195,002
same piece to electromagnetic radiation at a second frequency would
inherently result in the center portion of the piece being heated more than
the end portions. See Final Act. 4, 9; see also Ans. 16-25.
Independent claims 12 and 15 call for methods including language
similar to that discussed for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 18-20, Claims App.
The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings and conclusions for
claims 12 and 15 as discussed above in claim 1. See Final Act. 4, 9; see also
Ans. 16-25. Thus, the Examiner's findings and conclusions with respect to
Sargeant and Latchum are deficient for claims 12 and 15 as well.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 15 and their
respective dependent claims 2---6, 13, 14, and 17-20 as unpatentable over
Sargeant and Latchum.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6,
12-15, and 17-20 as unpatentable over Sargeant and Latchum.
REVERSED
4