Chunhe Zhang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2019

14828583 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2019)

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.
14/828,583 08/18/2015 Chunhe Zhang SP14-239 5221
22928 7590 07/31/2019
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
GUGLIOTTA, NICOLE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2019 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 CHUNHE ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
KAREN M HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Aug. 18, 2015, as amended (“Spec.”); Non-Final Office Action dated
Nov. 1, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Mar. 26, 2018 (“Br.”);
and Examiner’s Answer dated June 15, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
2
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision twice rejecting claims 1, 3–18, and 20.3
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to a glass/metal laminate structure for use, e.g.,
as an outer housing surface for an appliance, a room wall, a furniture panel,
or the like. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claim 1 is representative of the appealed claims,
and is reproduced below.
1. A laminated structure comprising:
a metal sheet having a first face and a second face with a
thickness extending between the first face and the second face
ranging from about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm;
a first glass sheet having a thickness ranging from about
0.1 mm to about 2.5 mm; and
a first interlayer attaching the first glass sheet to the first
face of the metal sheet, the first interlayer comprising a layer of
polyvinyl butyral or an ionomer, wherein the metal sheet has a
coefficient of thermal expansion that is within about 30% of a
coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass sheet.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims Appendix). Claim 14, the only other independent
claim on appeal, is directed to a method of manufacturing a laminated
structure and includes limitations similar to those in claim 1. See id. at 29.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Sadoune et al. US 4,337,997 July 6, 1982
(hereinafter “Sadoune”).
Bolton et al. US 4,663.228 May 5, 1987
(hereinafter “Bolton”).

2 The Appellant is the Applicant, Corning Incorporated, also identified as the
real party in interest. Br. 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
3
Bennison et al. US 2005/0042422 A1 Feb. 24, 2005
(hereinafter “Bennison”).
Bayne et al. US 2011/0165393 A1 July 7, 2011
(hereinafter “Bayne”)
Zhang et al. US 2016/0031187 A1 Feb. 4, 2016
(hereinafter “Zhang”)
DuPont, Typical Properties of Surlyn® Ionomer Grades
http://www.dupont.com//content/dam/dupont/products-and-
services/packaging-materials-and-solutions/packaging-materials-and-
solutions- landing/documents/Typical_Properties_of_
Surlyn.pdf. (May 18, 2015).
(hereinafter “DuPont”).
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as follows:
1. claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–14, 16, 17, and 20 over Bolton, as
evidenced by DuPont, in view of Zhang;
2. claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–14, 16, 17, and 20 over Bolton, as
evidenced by DuPont, in view of Bennison;
3. claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 over Sadoune in view
of Zhang;
4. claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 over Sadoune in view
of Bennison; and
5. claims 7, 10, 15, and 18 over each of Bolton and Zhang,
Sadoune and Zhang, Bolton and Bennison, and Sadoune and Bennison as
applied to claims 1 and 14, further in view of Bayne.
The Examiner found each of Bolton and Sadoune discloses the
invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 14 with the exception that
these references do not disclose that “the metal sheet has a coefficient of
thermal expansion that is within about 30% of a coefficient of thermal
Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
4
expansion ([CTE)] of the glass sheet” (claims 1, 14). Non-Final Act. 4–9.
The Examiner found one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have modified each of Bolton and Sadoune to match the
CTEs of the metal sheet and glass sheet within 30% based on Zhang’s
teaching that the CTE of the glass and metal layers should match for good
adhesion. Id. at 4, 8 (citing Zhang ¶ 21). The Examiner similarly found one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have modified
each of Bolton and Sadoune to match the CTEs of the metal sheet and glass
sheet within 10% “to ensure good adhesion and reduc[e] . . . internal
stresses” between the metal glass sheets, as taught by Bennison. Id. at 6, 9–
10 (citing Bennison ¶¶ 16, 21).
The Appellant’s arguments in support of patentability of all claims are
based on limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 14. The Appellant
also presents separate arguments in support of patentability of claim 3 over
the combinations of (1) Sadoune and Zhang and (2) Sadoune and Bennison.
For the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–18, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain
all grounds of rejection. Any arguments made by the Appellant that are not
discussed explicitly have been fully addressed by the Examiner and are
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the
reasons stated in the Non-Final Office Action and the Answer.
Rejections based on Zhang
The Appellant argues that the ordinary artisan would not have had a
reason to modify Bolton or Sadoune to match the CTEs of the metal sheet
and glass sheet as taught by Zhang, because both references describe
laminates that already have good adhesion, and Zhang’s invention relates to
improvements in the direct bonding of metal to glass, not improvements in
Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
5
adhesion of laminates that include a polymer interlayer, as described in
Bolton and Sadoune. Br. 9–10, 21–22.
Zhang teaches that at the time of the disclosed invention, it was
known in the art to form the substrate of a flexible device (e.g., displays,
lighting equipment, and solar cells) from glass, metal foil and polymer.
Zhang ¶ 5. A drawback of these devices, according to Zhang, was that the
polymer had low temperature stability that did not meet the high temperature
processing requirements of flexible devices. Id. Zhang overcomes this
drawback through the use of a composite article made of glass and metal
foil. Id. ¶ 21. Zhang discloses that “[t]he glass on the metal foil is flexible,
and it does not break.” Id. “[T]he thin glass can be directly attached to the
metal foil, or the assembly can also be affected by using glass powder or
glass slurry as the binder to adhere the thin glass and the metal foil
together.” Id. ¶ 19. Zhang discloses that the “glass requires specific
composition and specific property to make sure it has quite good adhesion to
the metal foil and high flexibility.” Id. ¶ 21. “[F]or example, the coefficient
of thermal expansion (CTE) of glass and metal foil should match each
other.” Id.
Bolton discloses “[l]aminated articles, particularly safety glass.”
Bolton, at [57]. Bolton describes an embodiment comprising a sheet of glass
and a sheet of metal joined by an ionomer resin film layer. Id. at 4:51–53. As
acknowledged by the Examiner, Bolton does not disclose the CTEs for the
glass and metal sheets, or their comparative values. Non-Final Act. 4.
Bolton, however, recognizes the importance of matching CTEs of the glass
and an inner polymer layer and the importance of achieving good adhesion
between laminate layers:
Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
6
Safety glass can be reinforced by lamination with an inner layer
of polycarbonate. The resulting lamination, however, is
impractical for two principal reasons. One reason is
insufficient bond strength when the polycarbonate is bonded
directly to the glass. A second, and even more important reason
stems from polycarbonate and glass having different co-
efficients of thermal expansion. Safety glass laminates ma[de]
b[y] bonding polycarbonate directly to glass will crack and
craze on cooling from the temperature necessary to bond the
two together, due to the different thermal expansion co-
efficients of the components.
Bolton 1:15–26 (emphasis added).
Given Bolton’s recognition that differences in the CTEs of polymer
and glass layers in a laminate can negatively impact the ability to achieve
good bonding and can increase the chance of glass breakage, the Examiner
had a reasonable basis for finding that the ordinary artisan would have
applied Zhang’s teaching of matching the CTE’s of glass and metal foil
layers to improve adhesion and reduce the chance that the glass layer would
break during processing. See Ans. 8 (“Bolton et al. do not disclose the CTE
values of their glass and metal layers. However, based on the teachings of
Zhang et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize all the factors
which contribute to adhesion must be optimized, which includes the
presence of an adhesive layer AND matching CTE values for all materials of
the laminate.”).
Sadoune discloses “[a] flexible radiant energy reflecting surface.”
Sadoune, at [57]. The reflector comprises a glass ply bonded to a metal ply
by means of a layer of bonding medium, preferably polyvinylbutyral. Id. at
3:46–47; 8:28–30. Sadoune describes polyvinylbutyral as a material that
“enables very strong metal/glass bonds to be achieved which are durable
under a useful range of temperatures and other fluctuating environmental
Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
7
conditions.” Id. at 3:47–50. Given Zhang’s teaching that matching the CTEs
of glass and metal layers in a laminate is a factor that improves the ability of
the laminate to bend without breaking the glass (Zhang ¶ 21), the Examiner
had a reasonable basis for finding one of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified Sadoune’s laminate to match the CTEs of glass and metal layers as
Sadoune likewise is concerned with flexibility and forming a strong bond
between the laminate layers. See Sadoune 2:34–40 (“By the efficiency of the
interply bond is meant the efficiency with which it can transmit stresses
from the metal to the glass when the laminate is flexed. An ideal bond of
100% efficiency would be one which resulted in the laminate behaving as a
monolithic structure in regard to the stress distribution profile through its
thickness.”).
As to the rejection of claim 3 based on the combination of Sadoune
and Zhang, the Appellant argues the Examiner erred in calculating the
thickness of the polyvinyl butyral layer by simply subtracting the
thicknesses of the glass and metal layers from the total thickness of
Sadoune’s laminate. Br. 23. The Appellant contends Sadoune’s laminate
structure includes three layers between the glass and metal layers, and only
one of these layers is polyvinyl butyral. Id. (citing Sadoune 8:23–31, Fig. 1).
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Sadoune’s laminate is
not limited to a structure in which reflecting (silver) and protective coatings
are located between the glass and metal layers. See Sadoune 5:48–63.
Rejections based on Bennison
The Appellant argues the Examiner reversibly erred in finding one of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bolton or Sadoune to match the
CTEs of the metal sheet and glass sheet based on the teachings of Bennison,
because although “Bennison et al. does provide a teaching related to CTE
Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
8
matching, it does so specifically in the context of [metal] attachment means
and [metal] receptor means that extend within a hole through a glass
structure.” Br. 19. The Appellant contends Bennison explicitly describes the
attachment means as a bolt, pin, nail, or the like, and the receptor means as a
structure that receives the attachment means, such as a bolt hole formed in
the laminate. Id. However, according to the Appellant, “[t]here is nothing in
Bennison et al. that relates to CTE matching between a metal sheet and glass
sheet of a laminated glass structure.” Br. 19 (emphasis added).
Bennison discloses a glass laminate having holes that will accept a
receptor and attachment means. Bennison ¶ 19. A thermoplastic interlayer
“form[s] an adhesive bond with the glass surfaces and also the receptor in
such a manner that the interlayer, the receptor, and the glass surfaces are
joined with a suitable adhesive force.” Id. Suitable thermoplastic interlayers
include ionomers. Id. ¶ 17. Bennison discloses that “[a] suitable receptor
means can be constructed of any material that is generally considered to be
sturdy, such as for example: metals such as steel, aluminum, titanium, brass,
lead, chrome, copper, and the like; [and] plastics such as . . . polyvinyl
butyral.” Id. ¶ 16. Bennison discloses that the occurrence of stress cracking
in the glass laminate is significantly reduced by matching the CTE of the
material used to make the attachment or receptor means with that of the
glass used in the laminate. Id. ¶ 21.
Given Bolton’s and Sadoune’s goals of reducing internal stresses that
cause breakage of the glass layer in a laminate comprising a glass layer
bonded to a metal layer (see, e.g., Bolton 1:15–26; Sadoune 2:34–40), the
Examiner had a reasonable basis for finding one of ordinary skill in the art
would have applied Bennison’s teaching of matching the CTEs of the glass
layer and the metal receptors bonded to the glass—by means of the same
Appeal 2018-008661
Application 14/828,583
9
type of adhesive used in Bolton’s and Sadoune’s laminates—in order to
reduce the occurrence of stress cracks in the glass.
The Appellant raises essentially the same arguments in support of
patentability of claim 3 over the combination of Sadoune and Bennison as
presented in support of patentability of claim 3 over the combination of
Sadoune and Zhang. Compare Br. 24–25, with Br. 23. This argument is not
persuasive for the reasons discussed above. See supra p. 7.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 3–18, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain all grounds of
rejection.
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).

AFFIRMED