Ex Parte Dunn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2016

13296981 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/296,981 11/15/2011
8698 7590 10/06/2016
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William DUNN
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.
MAN224 l -027B 1067
EXAMINER
FROST, ANTHONY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1782
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/06/2016 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):
s tandleydocketing@standley llp .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM DUNN and MICHAEL LECA VE
Appeal2015-004890
Application 13/296,981
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004890
Application 13/296,981
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention relating to a frame for
bonding glass components for electronic displays and methods for making
displays. Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below with emphasis added
to certain key recitations, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A frame for bonding a first glass component to a second
glass component with a desired thickness of adhesive, the first
glass component having a top surface and a perimeter, the frame
compnsmg:
a horizontal top portion sized to overlap the top surface
of the first glass component and having a
thickness substantially equal to the desired
thickness of adhesive between the first and
second glass components when the second glass
component is placed atop the frame,
sandwiching the frame between the first and
second glass components; and
a vertical side portion extending downwardly from the
horizontal top portion and sized to wrap around the
perimeter of the first glass component.
6. A glass assembly comprising:
a first glass component having a top surface and a
perimeter;
a frame overlapping the top surface and perimeter of the
first glass component;
a second glass component positioned atop the frame
sandwiching the frame between the first and second glass
components; and
a layer of adhesive interposed between the first and second
glass components.
2
Appeal2015-004890
Application 13/296,981
Br. 2 14--15 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Koike
Takushima et al.
(hereinafter "Takushima")
Aufderheide et al.
(hereinafter "Aufderheide")
us 5,406,399
US 6,465,092 B 1
US 6,555,235 Bl
REJECTIONS
Apr. 11, 1995
Oct. 15, 2002
Apr. 29, 2003
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1, 2, and 4--20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Koike in view of Takushima. Ans. 3.
Rejection 2. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Koike in view of Takushima and in further view of Aufderheide. Id. at 9.
i\.Ni\LYSIS
Two of the three independent claims on appeal, claims 6 and 15, each
require a first glass component, a frame, and a second glass component
positioned or placed "atop the frame sandwiching the frame between the first
and second glass components." Br. 15-16 (Claims Appendix). Similarly,
independent claim 1 requires "a second glass component with a desired
thickness of adhesive" and requires a frame having a horizontal top portion
overlapping a first glass component and "having a thickness substantially
equal to the desired thickness of adhesive between the first and second glass
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed June 16, 2014
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2014 ("Br."), and the
Examiner's Answer mailed March 13, 2015 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2015-004890
Application 13/296,981
components when the second glass component is placed atop the frame,
sandwiching the frame between the first and second glass components." Id.
at 14. Appellants argue that the prior art references do not teach placing
glass atop the frame and that the Examiner has not identified sufficient
reason as to why a person of skill in the art would have placed a second
piece of glass atop the frame. Br. 7, 10-12. We agree.
The Examiner's rejection is based upon Koike and Takushima. The
Examiner references Figure 1 of Koike. Final Act. 3. Koike Figure 1,
reproduced below, depicts a glass component 1 (for a liquid crystal display
(an "LCD")) with a protective frame 17 overlapping the top surface of the
glass. Koike 4:4--49.
1'8· .· .. ·: -.·. ._.... ., •,'
/
I
' r
I ;
Koike' s Figure 1 is a schematic sectional view of an LCD apparatus
showing a preferred embodiment of the Koike invention. Id. at 3:49-51.
Takushima relates to adhering a transparent resin to glass. Takushima
Abstract. Takushima teaches, for example, glass having an adhesive layer, a
plastic film layer, and an anti-reflective layer. Takushima 7:49-53. For
4
Appeal2015-004890
Application 13/296,981
example, Figure 1 of Takushima (not reproduced here) illustrates an anti-
reflective glass having "on a single surface or both surfaces of the glass 1, an
adhesive layer 2, a plastic film layer 3, and an anti-reflective layer 4."
12:37-39.
The Examiner proposes adhering "the glass film of Takushima with
the adhesive of Takushima in order to add antireflective and protective,
glass-scattering-resistance properties to the liquid crystal display of
Koike .... " Final Act. 4. Appellants, however, persuasively argue that
Takushima does not teach bonding glass components together. Br. 8.
Rather, Takushima relates to applying a beneficial film to glass. The
Examiner has not persuasively established that Takushima's film would
itself include a "second glass component" as required by each of the three
independent claims at issue.
Appellants also persuasively argue that the Examiner has not provided
adequate reasoning as to why a person of skill in the art would have placed
the antireflective component of Takushima atop a protective frame. Br. 10-
12. Indeed, Koike's emphasis on protection of glass would tend to suggest
that a person of skill would not have made such a combination. Br. 9-10;
see also, e.g., Koike Abstract; 3:24--32; 5:13-15. None of the illustrated
embodiments of Koike are orientated such that, for example, dropping the
device would result in the ground directly impacting the glass. Koike Figs.
1-7. Figure 3 of Koike, for example, provides an alternative embodiment
where the LCD is completely encased by a frame along with transparent
window member 24.
The Examiner's explanation for why it would have been obvious to
have placed the antireflective glass of Takushima (assuming, arguendo, that
5
Appeal2015-004890
Application 13/296,981
the antiretlective material is glass at all) is unpersuasive. The Examiner's
citations to Takushima more suggest that the antireflective material would
rest on the exterior of the glass rather than outside any frame. Ans. 11-12,
13-14. For example, Takushima states that "an outermost layer must always
be an antireflective layer" (Takushima 13:38-39), but in context, this
appears to state that the antireflective layer should be outermost relative to
the plastic film and the glass; the statement does not speak to the relative
position of any frame. See also, e.g., Takushima 23:47-24:8 (stating that the
filter can "be easily mounted onto a surface of the CR Ts [cathode ray
tubes]").
The Examiner's application of Aufderheide to claim 3 does not cure
the Examiner's underlying errors. Final Act. 8-9. Because a preponderance
of the evidence does not support the Examiner's obviousness conclusion, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 6, or 15 or
the claims depending from those independent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-20.
REVERSED
6