Lee, Juifeng

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2020

14155345 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
14/155,345 03/08/2014 Juifeng Lee LIIU-01 1035
121157 7590 04/27/2020
Allan A. Miller
1755 OFarrell Street #911
San Francisco, CA 94115
EXAMINER
LAZORCIK, JASON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2020 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):
allan.miller@alumni.stanford.edu
ninewives@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
Ex parte JUIFENG LEE
_______________
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345
Technology Center 1700
_______________
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 9, 18, and 19 of Application
14/155,345. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 14. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed March 8, 2014
(“Spec.”) of Application 14/155,345 (“the ’345 Application”); the Final
Office Action dated May 22, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed July
1, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer dated September 21,
2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the inventor Juifeng Lee as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

2
BACKGROUND
The ’345 Application relates to the manufacture of tempered glass art
furniture and accessories. See Spec. ¶ 2. The ’345 Application describes
connecting the furniture’s glass components with glass connectors, which
may be glued directly to the tempered glass surface. Id. ¶ 6. The ’345
Application describes that these glass connectors may be connected together
with assembly hardware. Id. According to the Specification, tempered glass
is safer because it is stronger than plate glass. Id. The ’345 Application
describes that, if tempered glass breaks, the glass breaks into small pieces
without sharp edges. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’345 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A method for manufacturing an article of furniture,
comprising:
printing, by a digital glass printer with a ceramic ink, on a first
side of a first plate glass, a first pattern comprising a first
unprinted area;
printing, by the digital glass printer with the ceramic ink, on a
third side of a second plate glass, a second pattern different
from the first pattern comprising a second unprinted area;
heating, by a tempering furnace, the first plate glass transported
into the tempering furnace by a plurality of rollers adjacent to a
second side of the first plate glass, the second side different
from the first side, wherein the first plate glass becomes pliable;
bending, by the plurality of rollers, responsive to the first plate
glass becoming pliable, the first plate glass, wherein the
bending of the first side is concave and the bending of the
second side is convex;
cooling, with one or more cooling fans of the tempering
furnace, responsive to the bending of the first plate glass, the
first plate glass, wherein the first plate glass becomes rigid;
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

3
transporting, by the plurality of rollers, responsive to the first
plate glass becoming rigid, the first plate glass out of the
tempering furnace;
heating, by the tempering furnace, the second plate glass
transported into the tempering furnace by the plurality of rollers
adjacent to a fourth side of the second plate glass, the fourth
side different from the third side, wherein the second plate glass
becomes pliable;
cooling, with the one or more cooling fans of the tempering
furnace, responsive to the second plate glass becoming pliable,
the second plate glass, wherein the second plate glass becomes
rigid;
transporting, by the plurality of rollers, responsive to the second
plate glass becoming rigid, the second plate glass out of the
tempering furnace;
curing, by an ultraviolet light through the first and second
unprinted areas, an adhesive bonding a first aluminum disk to
the first unprinted area and a second aluminum disk to the
second unprinted area; and
attaching, with a bracket, the first aluminum disk to the second
aluminum disk;
wherein:
the first plate glass and the second plate glass are structural
elements of the article of furniture;
the digital glass printer is a high-temperature digital glass
printer;
the ceramic ink is fused to the first plate glass by the heating by
the tempering furnace of the first plate glass;
the ceramic ink is fused to the second plate glass by the heating
by the tempering furnace of the second plate glass; and
the first aluminum disk, the second aluminum disk, and the
bracket are internal to the article of furniture.
Appeal Br. 25–26.
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
McMaster et al.
(“McMaster”)
US 3,573,889 April 6, 1971
Ohmura et al.
(“Ohmura”)
US 5,189,952 Mar. 2, 1993
Kramer US 5,246,477 Sept. 21, 1993
Eron US 2007/0031603 A1 Feb. 8, 2007
Pieters et al.
(“Pieters”)
US 2012/0196099 A1 Aug. 2, 2012
Hill GB 2188873 A Oct. 14, 1987
Uwe DE 202005014172 U1 Mar. 30, 2006
Zhang CN 201468591 U May 19, 2010
C.R. Laurence Company Glass Bonding System Catalog, Cat.
No. GB10 (2009) (hereinafter “GB10”).
C.R. Laurence Company, “Standoff and Clamp Hardware:
SC12 Catalog,” as evidenced by
https://www.glassonweb.com/news/crl-introduces-new-
standoff-and-clamp-hardware-catalog-sc12 (available January
24, 2011) (hereinafter “SC12”).
Glass Association of North America, “Laminated Glass Use in
Furniture,” Glass Information Bulletin, GANA LD 10-0712
(2012), http://store.glasswebsite.com/products/laminated-
glass-use-in-furniture (available July 2012) (hereinafter
“GANA”).

Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

5
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:3, 4
1. Claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Uwe, in
view of Zhang, Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, and Eron, and further in
view of SC12 and GB10. Final Act. 4–16.
2. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Uwe, in view of
Zhang, Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, Eron, SC12, and GB10, and
further in view of Hill. Final Act. 17–19.
3. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Uwe, in view
of Zhang, Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, Eron, SC12, and GB10, and
further in view of GANA and McMasters. Final Act. 19–24.
DISCUSSION
Ground 1: Rejection of claims 1 and 18 as obvious over Uwe, in view
of Zhang, Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, and Eron, and further in view of
SC12 and GB10
Appellant argues claims 1 and 18 as a group. See generally Appeal
Br. 15–24. We select claim 1 as representative of the group; claim 18 stands
or falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

3 Because this application claims priority to an application filed before the
March 16, 2013, effective date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the
pre-AIA version of the statute. Spec. ¶ 1.
4 Appellant’s November 22, 2017 amendment canceling claims 2 and 3,
entered for purposes of this appeal (Advisory Action mailed December 29,
2017), renders the Examiner’s rejection of those claims moot. Final Act. 2–
3.
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

6
The Examiner finds that the combination of Uwe, in view of Zhang,
Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, and Eron, and further in view of SC12 and GB10,
teaches all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4–16.
Appellant’s first argument for patentability of claim 1 is that the
Examiner’s application of “8 references, and an Official Notice, to reject a
claim with 11 elements” is impermissible pursuant to In re Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 09-1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reliance on numerous references
should be reversed because Judge Rader questioned such reliance during
Medicis’ oral arguments. Id. at 16. Appellant notes that the USPTO’s
Associate Solicitor made similar arguments in Medicis as the Examiner in
the present case. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error at least
because Medicis is a non-precedential case.5 In Medicis, the Federal Circuit
affirmed the USPTO’s reliance on seven prior art references to reject the
claims at issue in a Rule 36 judgment without opinion. In the present case,
Judge Rader’s comments during Medicis’ oral arguments are not dispositive
as the Medicis panel, including Judge Rader, implicitly found no clear error
in the USPTO Associate Solicitor’s position.

5 See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/09-
1291.pdf (available April 6, 2020). Federal Circuit Rule 32.1(d) provides
that our reviewing court “will not give one of its own nonprecedential
dispositions the effect of binding precedent.” See
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-of-
practice/FederalCircuitRulesofPractice-December2019.pdf (available April
6, 2020).
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

7
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s response that reliance on a
large number of references does not necessarily weigh against obviousness
of a claim. See Ans. 6 (explaining that the claimed subject matter “is not
related to a comparatively narrow technical area,” but spans “a plurality of
different subject fields (i.e. printing, glassworking, furniture mounting
fixtures, etc.) each of which may be found in a separate reference.”) (citing
In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). What the references would
have meant to one of ordinary skill in the art, not their number, is the
criterion for determining whether the references would have rendered a
claim obvious. See Gorman, 933 F.2d at 986; see also In re Miller, 159 F.2d
756, 758–59 (CCPA 1947) (rejecting the argument that the need for eight
references for a rejection supported patentability); In re Troiel, 274 F.2d
944, 947 (CCPA 1960) (rejecting appellant’s argument that combining a
large number of references to show obviousness was “farfetched and
illogical”)). The combination of eight references for a rejection of a claim of
the length of claim 1 is not conclusive of nonobviousness.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s contention that a finding of the
specific level of skill is unnecessary because the applied prior art reflects an
appropriate level. Appeal Br. 17; see Ans. 7. Appellant argues that the prior
art cannot reflect any appropriate level of expertise because, e.g., Uwe does
not teach Eron’s digital high-temperature printing and Eron is silent with
respect to connectors. Appeal Br. 17.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s “position on this matter
constitutes a piecemeal analysis of the references.” Ans. 7. The Examiner
reiterates that Ground 1 is not based on any reference in particular, but on
the combined teachings of each reference. Id.
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

8
In view of the Examiner’s explanation, Appellant’s assertion that the
prior art of record cannot provide a level of expertise is unpersuasive of
reversible error. In this case, the only facts regarding the level of skill in the
art are set forth in the Specification and the prior art of record. Thus, the
level of ordinary skill in the art must be inferred from the Specification and
the prior art. See, e.g., Ex parte Jud, No. 2006-1061, 2007 WL 9627858
(BPAI Jan. 30, 2007) (informative) (inferring level of skill in the art from
the specification). In such situations, the Federal Circuit has held that an
invention may be held to have been obvious without a specific finding of a
particular level of skill in the art as long as the prior art itself reflects an
appropriate level. Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d
774 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellant argues that there would have been no motivation for one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of record. Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant specifically contends that there would have been no reason to
connect Uwe’s tempered glass chair components with SC12’s and GB10’s
UV adhesive mounted connectors because Uwe only teaches drilled
connector hardware for assembling a glass chair. Id. at 18–19. Appellant
concludes that the Examiners proposed substitution of the SC12’s and
GB10’s UV adhesive mounted hardware fixtures for Uwe’s drilled mounting
brackets is based on impermissible hindsight. Id. at 19.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive that combining
SC12’s and GB10’s teachings with Uwe’s indicates use of impermissible
hindsight as the Examiner provided proper reasoning for the combinations,
and the combinations teach more than Uwe alone. As the Examiner finds,
SC12 teaches that the UV adhesive mounted hardware fixtures
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

9
“advantageously save glass fabrication time and expenses and circumvent
the need to drill through holes in the glass parts to secure mounting
hardware.” Final Act. 14.
In view of the Examiner’s explanation, Appellant’s assertion that the
prior art cannot be combined because the connectors described in Uwe and
those described in SC12 and GB10 “are used for completely different
functions” is unpersuasive of reversible error. Appeal Br. 19. One of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood
that using SC12 and GB10’s UV adhesive mounted hardware fixtures would
have obviated “the need to drill the component glass pieces of the Uwe glass
furniture in order to attach the mounting/assembly hardware.” Final Act.
15–16. Thus, the Examiner provides adequate motivation to combine the
references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(Examiner’s explanation of reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had to combine the prior art teachings is sufficient when
allowance is made for “the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
Based on Appellant’s translation of Zhang, Appellant argues that
Zhang teaches assembly of furniture components by gluing. Appeal Br. 19.
Appellant concludes that because the Examiner’s relied upon “machine
translation incorrectly translates [Zhang] as ‘bonding,’” that there would
have been “no reason to combine Zhang with either GB10 or SC12.” Id.
Appellant argues that Zhang’s chair is comprised of slump glass made
by “a very different manufacturing process” than Uwe’s tempered glass
material. Id. at 21. Appellant concludes that there would have been “no
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

10
reason to combine Uwe and Zhang for the purpose of describing bent
tempered glass furniture.” Id.
The Examiner correctly observes that Appellant is arguing against a
reference individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. Ans. 9. As the Examiner explains, Zhang is not relied upon for
teaching the type of connectors employed for assembling the glass furniture
or for teaching tempered glass components. Id. at 9, 10. Rather, Zhang
teaches the manufacture of glass furniture using complexly bent glass
components. Final Act. 6–7. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (“One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references.”).
Because Appellant fails to address the basis for the Examiner’s rejection,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant argues that there would have been no motivation for one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Eron or Pieters with GB10’s UV
adhesive mounting hardware. Appeal Br. 21–23. Appellant contends that
Eron’s purpose is to make patterned glass and Pieters’s purpose is to handle
structured glass. Id. at 22. Appellant argues GB10 warns that using UV
adhesive mounting hardware on glass that is structured, patterned,
sandblasted, or wired can cause lower adhesive bond strengths. Id.
Appellant concludes that GB10 teaches away from using UV adhesive
mounting hardware with digitally printed and structured glass as required by
claim 1. Id. at 22–23.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, GB10’s disclosure of glass types
that may cause lower bond strengths does not eliminate GB10’s teaching of
UV adhesive mounting hardware. For purposes of § 103(a), a reference is
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

11
prior art for all that it discloses. Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935
F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). GB10 teaches that “UV Curing
Adhesives” may be bonded with “[c]lear float glass, mirrored, tempered
glass, and smooth, flat wired glass . . . without problems.” GB10 GB02 (“1.
Material Selection”); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(Teaching away requires that a reference “criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the solution claimed” by Appellant.). GB10’s proper bonding
appears to be based, inter alia, on ensuring that the “all bonding surfaces
must be absolutely clean, free of grease, and dry.” GB10 GB02 (“2. Surface
Preparation”). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have combined the prior art elements in the methods of GB10, Eron,
and Pieters to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that “leaving an unprinted area in
the region of the component where the connector is fastened to the first
component would have constituted an obvious extension for a skilled
practitioner in the arts at the time of the invention with the benefit of the
prior art teachings.” Final Act. 12.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided specific factual
findings that are based on “‘sound technical and scientific reasoning’ to
support taking Official Notice.” Appeal Br. 22 (citing MPEP § 2144.03(B)).
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reliance on Official Notice of
thought processes that do not appear in any of the references, is
. . . in contrast to the MPEP indication that such Official Notice
without documentary evidence should be limited to
circumstances where “the facts asserted to be well-known, or to
be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and
unquestionable demonstration as being well known.”
Appeal Br. 24.
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

12
The Examiner, however, finds that GB10 teaches the importance of
keeping glass surfaces clear, tempered, and smooth for bonding. Final Act.
15 (citing GB10 GB02 (“1. Material Selection”)). GB10, moreover,
illustrates that projecting UV radiation through a glass substrate facilitates
bonding glass to metal connectors. See Final Act. 15 (citing GB10 GB02
(“2. Surface Preparation”)). As the Examiner determined, “it would have
. . . been obvious for a skilled practitioner to attach the UV adapters to an
unprinted and cleaned surface of the glass plates.” Final Act. 15; see also id.
at 13 (concluding that “a step of printing a first pattern ‘comprising a first
unprinted area[,]’ as recited at claim 1, . . . and leaving an unprinted area in
the pattern where the connector is fastened to the first and second
components . . . would have constituted a matter of common sense.”).
We find that the Examiner adequately supports that these findings are
“common knowledge,” or that they were common knowledge known to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Randall Mfg. v.
Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“In recognizing the role of
common knowledge and common sense, we have emphasized the
importance of a factual foundation to support a party’s claim about what one
of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have known.”); Mintz v. Dietz &
Watson, 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The mere recitation of the
words ‘common sense’ without any support adds nothing to the obviousness
question.”); Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]o invoke ‘common sense’ or any other basis for
extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness, [the factfinder]
must articulate its reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.”).
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

13
For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant
offers one specific argument for reversal of the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 18 under Ground 1 (Appeal Br. 15 (arguing that “[t]he rejection of
claim 18 used 8 references, and an Official Notice, to reject a claim with
only 7 elements, one fewer than the number of references.”)). For the
reasons set forth above, Appellant’s argument fails to identify reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection. See Gorman, 933 F.2d at 986. We,
therefore, also sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Ground 2: Rejection of claim 9 as obvious over Uwe, in view of
Zhang, Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, Eron, SC12, and GB10, and further
in view of Hill
Appellant offers one specific argument for reversal of the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 under Ground 2 (Appeal Br. 15 (arguing that “[t]he
rejection of claim 9 used 9 references to reject a claim with 13 elements.”)).
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant’s argument fails to identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See Gorman, 933 F.2d at 986.
Appellant, otherwise, implicitly argues that the Examiner’s assertions do not
cure the deficiencies in Ground 1 (obviousness over Uwe, in view of Zhang,
Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, and Eron, and further in view of SC12 and GB10).
See generally Appeal Br. 15–24.
Having found no deficiencies in Uwe, in view of Zhang, Pieters,
Kramer, Ohmura, and Eron, and further in view of SC12 and GB10 in
Ground 1, supra, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 as obvious over Uwe, in
view of Zhang, Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, Eron, SC12, and GB10, and
further in view of Hill.
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

14
Ground 3: Rejection of claim 19 as obvious over Uwe, in view of
Zhang, Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, Eron, SC12, and GB10, and further
in view of GANA and McMaster
Appellant offers one specific argument for reversal of the Examiner’s
rejection under Ground 3 (Appeal Br. 15 (arguing that “[t]he rejection of
claim 19 used 10 references to reject a claim with 12 elements.”)). For the
reasons set forth above, Appellant’s argument fails to identify reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection. See Gorman, 933 F.2d at 986. Appellant,
otherwise, implicitly argues that the Examiner’s assertions do not cure the
deficiencies in Ground 1 (obviousness over Uwe, in view of Zhang, Pieters,
Kramer, Ohmura, and Eron, and further in view of SC12 and GB10). See
generally Appeal Br. 15–24.
Having found no deficiencies in Uwe, in view of Zhang, Pieters,
Kramer, Ohmura, and Eron, and further in view of SC12 and GB10 in
Ground 1, supra, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 as obvious over Uwe,
in view of Zhang, Pieters, Kramer, Ohmura, Eron, SC12, and GB10, and
further in view of GANA and McMaster.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 18 103(a) Uwe, Zhang, Pieters,
Kramer, Ohmura,
Eron, SC12, GB10
1, 18
9 103(a) Uwe, Zhang, Pieters,
Kramer, Ohmura,
Eron, SC12, GB10,
Hill
9
Appeal 2019-004178
Application 14/155,345

15
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19 103(a) Uwe, Zhang, Pieters,
Kramer, Ohmura,
Eron, SC12, GB10,
GANA, McMaster
19
Claims
Rejected
1, 9, 18, 19
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED