Ex Parte Aburada et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2019

14260925 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/260,925 04/24/2014
22928 7590 01/31/2019
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tomohiro Aburada
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.
SP14-073Z 1012
EXAMINER
SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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 TOMOHIRO ABURADA, JEFFREY ROBERT AMADON,
CHRIS SCOTT KOGGE, and GAUTAM NARENDRA KUDV A
Appeal2018-003335
Application 14/260,925
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Apr. 24, 2014 ("Spec."); Final Office Action mailed Dec. 29, 2016
("Final"); Appeal Brief filed July 21, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed Dec. 12, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed Feb. 7, 2018
("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-003335
Application 14/260,925
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 8-20, 22-26, and 28-32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The invention "relates ... to glass manufacturing apparatus and
methods ... with a first pull roll apparatus, a second pull roll apparatus, and
a control device." Spec. ,r 1. The claims on appeal are directed to a method
of manufacturing a glass ribbon. Appeal Br. 14--17 (Claims Appendix).
Claim 8 is representative, and is reproduced below.
8. A method of manufacturing a glass ribbon comprising the
steps of:
forming a glass ribbon including a first edge portion, a
second edge portion, and a width defined between an outer edge
of the first edge portion and an outer edge of the second edge
portion;
independently operating a first pull roll apparatus such
that the first pull roll apparatus rotates with a substantially
constant torque to draw the glass ribbon along a draw path
extending transverse to the width of the glass ribbon, the
independently operating the first pull roll apparatus engaging
the first edge portion without engaging a first central portion of
a first major surface of the glass ribbon or a second central
portion of a second major swface of the glass ribbon that are
disposed between the first edge portion and the second edge
portion;
independently operating a second pull roll apparatus such
that the second pull roll apparatus rotates with a substantially
constant angular velocity to further draw the glass ribbon along
the draw path; and
2 Appellant is the Applicant and the real party in interest: Coming
Incorporated. See Appeal Br. 2.
2
Appeal2018-003335
Application 14/260,925
adjusting the substantially constant torque of the first pull
roll apparatus based on an operating condition of at least one of
the first pull roll apparatus and the second pull roll apparatus.
Id. at 14 ( emphasis added). Claim 18, the only other independent claim on
appeal, recites similar steps and includes the same limitation shown in italics
in claim 1, above. Id. at 15-16. The Specification discloses that a "pull roll
apparatus" includes a pair of draw rolls, at least one of the rolls being
provided with a motor. Spec. ,r,r 48, 50; Fig. 3.
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows (see Ans.
3--4):
1. claim 8-18, 22-26, and 28-32 3 over Lakota (US 2012/0304695 Al,
published Dec. 6, 2012) in view of Anderson (US 2009/0107182 Al,
published Apr. 30, 2009); 4 and
2. claims 19 and 20 over Lakota in view of Anderson and Neubauer
(US 2012/0004084 Al, published Jan. 5, 2012).
The Examiner finds Lakota discloses a method as recited in claim 8,
with the exception that in Lakota's method, the first pull roll apparatus
engages not only edge portions of a glass ribbon as required by claim 8, but
also first and second central portions of the glass ribbon surfaces, which is
3 The Examiner includes claims 21 and 27 in the list of claims subject to this
ground of rejection. Ans. 4. Both claims were cancelled in an After-Final
Amendment filed June 12, 2017. See Advisory Action dated June 27, 2017
(indicating the amendment was entered).
4 The Examiner identifies this rejection as a new ground of rejection. Ans. 4;
see also Advisory Action dated June 27, 2017. In the Final Office Action,
claims 8-11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l), and claims 12-18
and 21-32 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lakota
in view of Anderson. See Final 2-3. The Examiner does not maintain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in the Answer.
3
Appeal2018-003335
Application 14/260,925
contrary to the second step of the claimed method (see italicized language in
claim 8 supra p. 2). See Ans. 4. The Examiner finds, however, that Lakota
discloses that the glass forming apparatus can be modified to use different
types of rolls. Id. at 5 ( citing Lakota ,r 97). The Examiner finds Anderson
discloses the use of a pull roll apparatus wherein the rolls engage edge
portions of a glass ribbon, but not the central portions of the ribbon. Id. at 4
( citing Anderson Fig. 5A). The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the
art would have replaced Lakota's pull roll apparatus (including the sizing
rolls) with Anderson's pull roll apparatus based on Anderson's teaching that
the use of rolls that engage only edge portions of a glass ribbon was
conventional in the art. Id. at 4 (citing Lakota ,r,r 36, 41), 5 (citing Anderson
Appellant argues the Examiner's obviousness determination is based
on an erroneous finding that Lakota teaches that any type of roll can be used
in place of the explicitly described rolls. Reply Br. 6. Appellant contends
paragraph 97 of Lakota discloses only that the rolls may be formed from
different materials. Id. Appellant argues that modifying Lakota's method to
use rolls that engage only edge portions of a glass ribbon would render
Lakota's method unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. at 11.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive.
Anderson discloses a conventional pull roll apparatus for use in a
fusion process. See Anderson ,r,r 3, 5, 6. Lakota discloses that the fusion
process "is typically limited to the formation of glass having viscosity above
about 100,000 poise or more and produces sheets with relatively thick
undesirable 'edge beads' that need to be removed." Lakota ,r 6. Lakota
discloses that "[ t ]here is a need in the art for a precision glass forming
4
Appeal2018-003335
Application 14/260,925
process and apparatus that is capable of precision forming glass and glass
ceramic compositions that cannot be fusion formed," and "that is capable of
precision forming a wide range of glass compositions having a wide range of
viscosities into thin glass sheets having a relatively high precision thickness
uniformity." Id. ,r 7. To address these needs, Lakota utilizes a roll forming
process wherein a stream of molten glass is delivered to the center of a nip
between a pair of hot forming rolls that flatten, thin, and smoothen the
stream of molten glass into a flat sheet of glass. Id. ,r,r 2, 64. The glass sheet
is then delivered to sizing rolls having a relatively cold surface temperature.
Id. ,r 66. The "cold sizing rolls are precision dimensioned cylinders" "that
further form and thin the glass sheet ... to the desired precision
thickness/size." Id. Lakota discloses that one or more pairs of conventional
pulling rolls optionally may be provided below the sizing rolls. Id. ,r 69.
Given the above disclosure in Anderson and Lakota, Appellant
presents a persuasive argument that "[ t ]he ability of the glass forming
system of Lakota to thin the glass ribbon to a flat sheet with a precise
thickness across the entire width of the ribbon, for which the forming rolls
14, 16 as well as the forming (sizing) rolls 24, 26 of Lakota are designed,
would be destroyed." Reply Br. 11; see also Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner has
not explained why this argument is erroneous or unreasonable. See Ans. 9
("The use of the rolls of Anderson in the apparatus of Lakota would be akin
to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
predictable results.").
There can be no motivation to combine the teachings of references if
to do so would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
5
Appeal2018-003335
Application 14/260,925
Because Appellant has argued persuasively that the Examiner's modification
of Lakota's method to utilize Anderson's rolls would render Lakota's
method unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 8 or its dependent claims 9-17 and 22-26.
Nor do we sustain the rejection of independent claim 18, which is based on
the same unsupported findings discussed above, or its dependent claims 28-
32. See Ans. 7. The Examiner's citations to Neubauer, relied on in rejecting
claims 19 and 20, do not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's findings
with respect to Lakota and Anderson. See Ans. 3. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of these claims.
REVERSED
6