Ex Parte Joseph et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

14152265 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/152,265 01/10/2014
22928 7590 03/26/2018
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Albert Joseph II
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.
SP08-258B 6466
EXAMINER
FRANKLIN, JODI COHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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 MICHAEL ALBERT JOSEPH II
and STEVEN EDWARD DeMARTIN0 1
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,
and AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 46-58, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicants, in the instant Application are
said to be Coming Incorporated. Appeal Brief dated April 26, 2016 ("App.
Br."), at 2.
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
The claimed subject matter is directed to a method of producing a
glass sheet and a glass manufacturing system that uses a scoreless separation
device. The Appellants' Figure 8, reproduced below, illustrates an
exemplary glass manufacturing system, according to one embodiment of the
invention, utilizing a scoreless separating apparatus to shear a moving glass
sheet and remove the outer edges therefrom. Spec. i-fi-f 12-13.
i' :::_.~,
A ,. . , , ,,..J ""~ ,
"'"·~:;"e~11;k?,)
... ,.t.,.---
Appellants' Figure 8 depicts a perspective view of a
scoreless separating apparatus according to one
embodiment of the invention.
The Appellants disclose that:
In operation, the separation devices 703a and 703b each apply
an external stress to generate a stress profile within the moving
glass sheet 705 where the stress profile produces a crack which
is formed in a predefined location within the moving glass sheet
705 to separate and remove the outer edges 706a and 706b
without needing to score the glass sheet 705.
Spec. ,-r 29.
2
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
The Appellants disclose that "the separation devices 703a and 703b
begin to curve the remaining portion of the glass sheet 705' and, with the aid
of the sheet stabilizers 740a and 740b, the remaining glass sheet 705' can be
rolled up on the take-up roller 745." Spec. i-f 29.
Independent claims 46 and 53 are reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
46. A method for producing a glass sheet, said method
comprising the steps of:
causing the glass sheet to travel in a traveling direction;
separating the glass sheet which is moving in the
traveling direction using a scoreless separation device which
comprises a separation mechanism that generates a stress
profile within the moving glass sheet that produces a crack in a
predefined location within the moving glass sheet to shear off
an edge of the moving glass sheet;
wherein after the edge has been sheared off of the
moving glass sheet, a remaining portion of the moving glass
sheet is curved away from the traveling direction to a greater
extent than is the sheared-off edge; and
winding the remaining portion of the moving glass sheet
onto a take-up roller.
53. A glass manufacturing system comprising:
a scoreless separation device comprising a separation
mechanism that generates a stress profile within the moving
glass sheet where the stress profile produces a crack which is
subsequently formed in a predefined location within the moving
glass sheet to shear off an edge of the moving glass sheet;
a conveyance mechanism having a travel path extending
in a traveling direction leading to the scoreless separation
device, and separate travel paths leading away from the
scoreless separation device, the conveyance mechanism
configured so that after the edge has been sheared off of the
moving glass sheet, a remaining portion of the moving glass
3
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
sheet is curved away from the traveling direction to a greater
extent than is the sheared-off edge; and
a take-up roller on which there is wound the remaining
portion of the moving glass sheet.
App. Br., Claims Appendix.
The following rejections are maintained on appeal:
(1) claims 46, 47, 50-53, and 56-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ostendarp et al. 2 in view of Herve et al.; 3
(2) claims 49 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ostendarp in view of Herve, and further in view ofMouly et al.; 4 and
(3) claims 48 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ostendarp in view of Herve and Mouly, and further in view of Curtze et al. 5
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
a. Claims 46 and 53
The Examiner finds Ostendarp discloses a method and apparatus for
producing a glass sheet from molten glass. Ans. 2. 6 Ostendarp's Figure 1,
reproduced below, illustrates an apparatus according to the disclosed
invention.
2 US 6,502,423 Bl, issued January 7, 2003 ("Ostendarp").
3 US 2008/0264994 Al, published October 30, 2008 ("Herve").
4 US 4,749,400, issued June 7, 1988 ("Mouly").
5 US 3,244,337, issued April 5, 1966 ("Curtze").
6 Examiner's Answer dated November 4, 2016.
4
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
Ostendarp' s Figure 1 is a side view of an apparatus
for making glass panes according to the invention.
According to the invention disclosed in Ostendarp, edge cutting
device 50 and cutting device 52 are arranged above transport device 40.
Ostendarp, col. 7, 11. 17-19. Glass borders 5a, 5b are cut off with edge
cutting device 50 and are broken with edge breaking device 57. Ostendarp,
col. 7, 11. 28-30. Thereafter, in the embodiment illustrated in Ostendarp's
Figure 1, cutting device 52 cuts the glass panels to length. Ostendarp, col. 7,
11. 24--25. Ostendarp discloses that the glass may be rolled or wound up
instead of being cut to length. Ostendarp, col. 3, 11. 16-19.
In the rejection on appeal, the Examiner identifies the traveling
direction as the horizontal direction after section 3b. Ans. 2. The Examiner
finds that:
winding the remaining portion of the moving glass sheet of
thicknesses of 0.03-0.4 mm onto a take-up roller (Col 3; lines
15-21), wherein winding the remaining portion of the glass onto
a take up roller would roll the glass sheet 3 60° and necessarily
curve away the moving glass sheet to a greater extent than the
sheared off edge.
5
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
Ans. 3 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 8-9. The Examiner provides
annotated Ostendarp's Figure 1, reproduced below, to illustrate that finding.
Ans. 8.
~J~.·
J"-··:-.·.~r;S.:<.:'.-~: '.<,~t
·.·''
Annotated Ostendarp' s Figure 1 is a side view of the
glass pane making apparatus with a take-up roller
located downstream of edge cutting device 50.
The Appellants argue:
[W]hether the glass band 2 would curve away from the
transport direction to a greater extent during winding than
would the edges 5a, b as they are diverted from the travel path
toward edge breaking device 57 would depend upon the
diameter of the winding roll and the radius of the edges 5a, bin
zone 3c. And Ostendarp is silent as to the relative sizes of these
bending radii. Accordingly, Ostendarp does not necessarily
require the glass band 2 to curve away from the travel path to a
greater extent than do the edges 5a, b, as is specified in
Appellant's claims.
App. Br. 13-14 (emphasis added). The Appellants' argument is supported
by the record.
Moreover, claim 46 recites the separate steps of curving a remaining
portion of the moving glass sheet away from the traveling direction after the
6
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
edge has been sheared off and winding the remaining portion of the moving
glass sheet onto a take-up roller. App. Br., Claims Appendix. The
Examiner improperly reduces these two steps into a single step. See Ans. 3
(finding that winding the remaining portion of the glass sheet onto a take-up
roller curves the glass sheet to a greater extent than the sheared off edge); 7
see also Reply Br. 5. 8
In the alternative, the Examiner concludes that:
[I]t would be obvious to one skilled in the art to merely reverse
the movement of the sheet and edge by reversing the paths of
the remaining portion of the moving glass sheet and the severed
edges and have the remaining portion of the moving glass sheet
curve to a final destination while the severed edge continues
straight.
Ans. 4 (citing In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955)).
The Appellants argue that the claimed arrangement of travel paths
"imparts a different and beneficial result to the actual shearing of the edges
from the remaining part." App. Br. 14. More specifically, the Appellants
argue:
[T]he remaining portion is typically thinner than the sheared-off
edge portion. Accordingly, the remaining portion is moved
from the traveling direction to a greater extent because it can be
more easily moved (due to its relatively smaller thickness). In
such a manner, there is created less disturbance to the shearing
7 Similarly, the system of claim 53 comprises, inter alia, a conveyance
mechanism configured "so that after the edge has been sheared off of the
moving glass sheet, a remaining portion of the moving glass sheet is curved
away from the traveling direction" and a separate take-up roller "on which
there is wound the remaining portion of the moving glass sheet." App. Br.,
Claims Appendix. The Examiner also reduces these two elements into a
single element.
8 Reply Brief dated January 4, 2017.
7
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
than by curving the relatively thicker edge part away from the
travel direction at the time of shearing. That is, it is easier to re-
direct the thinner portion than it is to re-direct the thicker
portion, and the re-directing can be done with less disturbance
to the shearing, which leads to higher strength edges in the
remaining portion, which is a desired end of the present
application.
App. Br. 14 (emphasis added) (citing Spec. i-fi-121-23, 25, 26, 29, 35, 36, 39).
In response, the Examiner finds that the portions of the Specification
relied on by the Appellants do not support the Appellants' argument because
"they only refer to a stress field or stress distribution which causes crack
propagation in a desired location which leads to a desired edge strength."
Ans. 9 (emphasis added); see Spec. i139 (describing scoreless separation
apparatus 702 and disclosing that "[a]n advantage of this scoreless
separation method is that the sheared glass sheet 705' has considerably
stronger edges when compared to conventional scored glass sheets").
The Appellants recognize that the cited paragraphs "include a
discussion on the use of stress to sever the remaining portion and the edge
portion." Reply Br. 4. Nonetheless, for the first time on appeal, the
Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that:
taken together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art, including beam mechanics, one would understand that
bending the stiff er edge portion (as opposed to the thinner
remaining portion) would impart a higher stress back at the
position where severing (also by stress) is taking place. And
this higher imparted mechanically induced stress (as by bending
the stiffer edge portion) would lead to more disturbance to the
stresses being used to sever the glass, which leads to lower
quality edges on the remaining portion.
Reply Br. 4--5 (emphasis added).
8
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
The Appellants do not show good cause why the argument was not
raised in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Moreover, the
Appellants do not direct us to any evidence demonstrating the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art, including the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art of beam mechanics. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602
(CCPA 1965) ("Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in
the record.").
Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence of record
supports the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the§ 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 46 and 53 is sustained.
The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of dependent claims 4 7, 50, 51, 56, and 57. Therefore,
the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 47, 50, 51, 56, and 57 also is sustained.
b. Claims 52 and 58
Claim 58 recites "[t]he glass manufacturing system of Claim 53,
wherein the separation device further comprises a cutter which cuts or
partially cuts a coating on the moving glass sheet prior to shearing the edge
from the moving glass sheet." App. Br., Claims Appendix.
The Appellants argue that "neither Ostendarp nor Herve disclose that
there is a coating on the glass sheet, let alone the method of cutting or
partially cutting the coating prior to shearing the edge from the moving glass
sheet." App. Br. 15.
The Examiner concludes that claim 5 8 recites an apparatus, not a
coated glass sheet. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that "the prior art
need only be capable of cutting a coating" to satisfy the limitation of claim
58. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that
9
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
wheel 131 in Herve creates an initiation crack in a glass sheet and would be
capable of cutting through a coating on the glass sheet. Ans. 10.
Claim 52 recites "[t]he method of Claim 46, wherein the separation
device further comprises a cutter which cuts or partially cuts a coating on
the moving glass sheet prior to shearing the edge from the moving glass
sheet." App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). The Examiner
concludes that claim 52, which is a method claim, does not recite an active
step of cutting a coating. Ans. 10. Thus, to the extent that Herve does not
disclose that wheel 131 cuts a glass coating, claim 52 does not require a
glass coating to be cut in the claimed method.
The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's
interpretation of claims 52 and 58. Therefore, the§ 103(a) rejection of
claims 52 and 58 is sustained.
2. Rejections (2) and (3)
The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's factual
findings or legal conclusions as to Mouly in the rejection of claims 49 and
55 or Curtze in the rejection of claims 48 and 54. Rather, the Appellants
argue that the Examiner fails to explain how Mouly and Curtze cure the
deficiencies in Ostendarp and Herve. App. Br. 16-17.
For the reasons discussed above, there are no deficiencies in
Ostendarp or Herve that require curing by Mouly or Curtze. Therefore, the
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 48, 49, 54, and 55 are sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
10
Appeal2017-003636
Application 14/152,265
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
11