Ex Parte King

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14090275 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/090,275 11/26/2013
22928 7590 08/02/2018
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey Stapleton King
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.
SP12-373 5972
EXAMINER
FROST, ANTHONY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1782
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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 JEFFREY STAPLETON KING
Appeal2017-008226
Application 14/090,275
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-22 of
Application 14/090,275 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. (May 31, 2016)
2---6. Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 The Applicant, Coming Incorporated, is identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008226
Application 14/090,275
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a high optical
transmittance glass for use in electronic touch screen applications. Abst. In
particular the described glass is suitable for use as an optical touch screen
based on frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR). Spec. ,r 38. FTIR
involves guiding electromagnetic radiation through a transparent material.
Id. An object that comes into contact with the surface of the material leads
to attenuation of the radiation. Id. This attenuation may be used to provide
information related to such things as position and contact pressure. Id.
Undesirable optical losses in the light transmission medium may be
caused by scattering from imperfections and absorption from compounds in
the medium. Id. ,r 40. Such losses may require more launching power, may
increase noise, and/or cause lower signal on the receiving side. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for
emphasis:
1. A glass sheet operating as a touch screen under frustrated
total internal reflection using infrared LEDs, wherein the
sheet is make from a high optical transmittance glass
compnsmg:
a. silica and alumina;
b. less than 10 imperfections per cm3,
wherein:
1. the imperfection comprises an
inclusion or bubble; and
11. the size of the imperfection is less
than about 100 µm along the axis of
the longest dimension of the
imperfection; and
2
Appeal2017-008226
Application 14/090,275
c. less than 30 ppm total iron reported as
Fe203; and
wherein the absorption coefficient of the glass is
less than 2.0 m-1 at 900 nm.
Appeal Br. 18 ( Claims App.) ( emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Ellison et al. 2 in view of Pedeboscq et al. 3
and Sohn et al. 4 Final Act. 3---6.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ellison
in view of Pedeboscq and further in view of Bange et al. 5 Id. at 6.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-
22 as obvious over Ellison in view of Pedeboscq and Sohn. Id. at 3---6.
Appellant presents argument solely as to claim 1, the only independent claim
at issue. Accordingly, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv) (2014), the
remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 1.
2 US 7,666,511 B2, issued Feb. 23, 2010 ("Ellison").
3 WO 2009/115725 A2, published Sept. 24, 2009 ("Pedeboscq") ( citations to
United States counterpart US 2011/0098171 Al, published Apr. 28, 2011).
4 US 2009/0128508 Al, published May 21, 2009 ("Sohn").
5 US 6,128,924, issued Oct. 10, 2000 ("Bange").
3
Appeal2017-008226
Application 14/090,275
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, that the glass sheet comprise "less than 10
imperfections per cm3." The Examiner found this limitation to be met by the
secondary reference, Pedeboscq, which teaches a method of producing glass
so that gaseous inclusions and bubbles are minimized. Final Act. 3. In the
Answer, the Examiner found as follows:
Pedeboscq defines the refining step as eliminating bubbles from
the glass ([0009]). Pedeboscq teaches to perform an additional
refining step in order to eliminate bubbles, if the presence of
bubbles is undesirable ([0014]). The Examiner interprets these
teachings (that is, the word "eliminate") to mean the complete
removal of bubbles from the glass.
Answer 7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's findings are in error. Appellant
contends that "one skilled in the art would understand and appreciate that,
despite refining the glass melt as taught by Pedeboscq, all imperfections
( such as bubbles and inclusions) of all sizes would not necessarily be
removed or even lowered to the concentration recited in claim 1." Appeal
Br. 11. Appellant further contends that the bubbling step of Pedeboscq
(following the refining step) is taught "to oxidize the glass, not for the
purposes of further refining the glass" melt. Id. ( emphasis removed).
Appellant further contends that "the mere fact that larger bubbles are
used by Pedeboscq [in the bubbling/oxidation step] to promote the escape of
those bubbles from the glass melt does not necessarily mean that other
smaller bubbles are not present in the glass melt. As such, Appellant[ ]
assert[ s] that there is no explicit teaching in Pedeboscq that all bubbles of all
sizes are removed from the glass melt." Appeal Br. 14. Appellant reasons
that the Examiner must rely upon inherency to show the removal of the
4
Appeal2017-008226
Application 14/090,275
bubbles but has failed to make the necessary showing to do so. Appeal Br.
14--16.
Pedeboscq teaches a refining step followed by a bubbling (oxidation)
step. Pedeboscq teaches that a "refining step" is understood to mean "any
step during which the gaseous inclusions contained in the glass bath are
eliminated." Pedeboscq ,r 9. A refining step may include introduction of
refining agents "with the batch materials." Id. The refining agents "are the
source of gas evolutions during the melting and refining steps." Id.
The refining step is taught to be followed by an oxidizing step. Id.
,r 12. Pedeboscq teaches that "the bubbling of oxidizing gas is carried out
either between the refining and cooling steps, or during the cooling step."
Id. ,r 11. Pedeboscq further teaches that "it is important that the bubbling
takes place in a well refined glass bath, that is to say that [it] is substantially
free of gaseous inclusions before bubbling." Id. With regard to the size of
the bubbles of the oxidizing gas, Pedeboscq teaches as follows:
It is preferable that the bubbling creates, within the glass
bath, bubbles having an average diameter between 0.05 and 5
cm, especially between 0.5 and 5 cm, or even between 1 and 2
cm. This is because bubbles having too small a diameter risk
remaining trapped in the glass due to their low rise velocity.
Id. ,I 14.
Pedeboscq further teaches that "[i]f the presence of bubbles in the
final glass is undesirable, it is possible to carry out a second refining step
after bubbling." Id. It goes on to state that the second refining step requires
"only a reduction in the depth of the glass and/or in the residence time in
order to eliminate the bubbles naturally. For certain applications,
however, especially applications in the field of photovoltaics or of solar
mirrors, it has been revealed that a small number of bubbles could be present
5
Appeal2017-008226
Application 14/090,275
in the final glass without in any way impairing the properties of the glass."
Id. ( emphasis added).
In regard to the presence of oxygen bubbles in the glass, Pedeboscq
teaches the following:
The glass substrate according to the invention may also
contain bubbles of oxygen, in particular bubbles having a
diameter that does not exceed 200 micrometers. Preferably, at
least 95% of the bubbles, or even all of the bubbles, have a
diameter of less than 200 micrometers. The amount of bubbles
may advantageously be between 500 and 10 000 bubbles per liter
of glass, especially between 500 and 6000 bubbles per liter of
glass. As indicated previously, it has been shown that the
presence of oxygen bubbles did not have any drawback for
certain targeted applications hereinbelow.
Pedeboscq ,r 46. The range 500-6,000 bubbles per liter is equivalent to .5---6
bubbles per cubic centimeter.
Pedeboscq additionally teaches another embodiment "characterized in
that it ... contains less than 1 bubble per cm3• The amount of bubbles is
preferably less than or equal to 10-2, or even 10-3 bubbles/cm3." Pedeboscq
,r 81. In regard to this same embodiment, Pedeboscq further teaches
Such glasses or glass-ceramics that are colorless and
nevertheless well refined could be obtained previously only by
the use of refining agents such as arsenic or antimony oxides.
The invention makes it possible, for the first time, to result in
colorless glass-ceramics that are free of such agents and yet that
are correctly refined, in the sense that they do not contain
gaseous inclusions. It is of course possible to obtain, on the
laboratory scale, glass-ceramics that are colorless and free of
any refining agent, but the absence of refining agents inevitably
generates a large amount of bubbles.
Pedeboscq ,r 82 ( emphasis added).
6
Appeal2017-008226
Application 14/090,275
As persons of scientific competence in the fields in which they work,
examiners are responsible for making findings, informed by their scientific
knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of ordinary
skill in the art. Absent legal error or contrary factual evidence, those
findings can establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Berg, 320
F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, the Examiner's finding, that
Pedeboscq teaches a process that yields few or no imperfections, is
supported by the reference. See Pedeboscq ,r,r 46, 81-82. Indeed,
Pedeboscq teaches an embodiment having 1/1000th of a bubble per cubic
centimeter. Id. ,r 81. Moreover, Appellant opines on what would be
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 11)
but relies substantially on attorney argument in support thereof. Attorney
argument is not evidence. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974).
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has failed to show reversible error
in the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-22.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claim 15 as obvious over Ellison
in view of Pedeboscq and further in view of Bange. Final Act. 6. Claim 15
depends from claim 1. On appeal, Appellant relies upon the same arguments
presented in regard to claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. For the reasons set forth
above, we find such argument to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 15 has not been shown to be in error.
7
Appeal2017-008226
Application 14/090,275
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in the Final Rejection, the Examiner's
Answer, and above, the rejections of all claims at issue are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8