Ex Parte Bennett

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2013

11692429 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/692,429 03/28/2007 Terry A. Bennett GLT 1891 PUS 7543
22045 7590 06/11/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
EXAMINER
BELYAEV, YANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TERRY A. BENNETT
____________

Appeal 2012-005648
Application 11/692,429
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks relief from the Examiner's final rejection of
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 directed to a quench station and method for quenching
a formed glass sheet.
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal:
1. A quench station for quenching a formed glass sheet,
comprising:

a conveyor for conveying a formed glass sheet along a direction of
conveyance, the conveyor including an open center ring;

at least one quench section into which the formed glass sheet is
conveyed on the open center ring, the quench station including lower and
upper quench head assemblies respectively positioned below and above the
conveyed glass sheet on the center open ring;
Appeal 2012-005648
Application 11/692,429

2

each quench head assembly including a plurality of quench manifolds
extending along the direction of conveyance spaced from each other laterally
with respect to the direction of conveyance at respective lateral locations,
and each quench manifold having a plurality of quench openings spaced
along the direction of conveyance and oriented toward the conveyed glass
sheet on the open center ring;

a quench plenum to which pressurized air is supplied;

a plurality of quench conduits for respectively feeding pressurized air
from the quench plenum to the quench manifolds of both the lower and
upper quench head assemblies to provide upwardly and downwardly
directed quench air to the formed glass sheet on the open center ring with
each quench manifold directing quench air at an associated lateral location;

valves respectively associated with at least some of the quench
conduits of both the lower and upper quench head assemblies to selectively
permit or prevent air flow therethrough to the associated quench manifolds
so the quench station can be operated so quench air is only supplied at lateral
locations where a formed glass sheet is located on the open center ring and is
not supplied at lateral locations unoccupied by a formed glass sheet to be
quenched;

both the lower and upper quench head assemblies having a plurality of
actuators that each operate a plurality of valves associated with conduits that
feed pressurized air to an associated quench manifold; and

a programmable valve controller that operates the actuators so quench
air is supplied to lateral locations occupied by a glass sheet to be quenched
on the open center ring but is not supplied at lateral locations of the quench
station not occupied by a glass sheet being quenched.

We reverse the decision of the Examiner because none of the applied
references suggests a structure that supplies air “only [] at lateral locations
where a formed glass sheet is located” and “not [] at lateral locations
unoccupied by a formed glass sheet” as required by each independent claim.
Appeal 2012-005648
Application 11/692,429

3
Claims 1, 12 (both directed to quench station capable of performing that
function); see Claims 13, 20 (both directed to method for quenching a
formed glass sheet that involves operating valves to supply “pressurized air
flows to the conveyed glass sheet . . . without supplying unnecessary air
flows that are not needed to provide the quenching at lateral locations of the
quench station not occupied by a formed glass sheet to be quenched”).
Specifically, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner identifies no
suggestion in the art for “supplying quench air at less than the entire lateral
extent of the quench” station. App. Br. 13 (quoting Bennett Decl. ¶ 7).
The Examiner relies on Ritz1 for that suggestion. Ans. 4, 11. The
Examiner finds that Ritz discloses “an independent array of gas jet nozzles,
wherein [a] computer provides independent control of each array of gas jet
nozzles, specifically each valve is automatically opened or closed at
preselected times by the controller[.]” Ans. 6 (citing Ritz Abstract; 3:5-14).
The cited portions of Ritz, however, relate to “a specific time-pressure
profile” for exerting “infinitely varying” gas pressures “on a particular
portion of the surface of” a heated glass sheet “during the glass sheet
bending process.” Ritz 3:5-14. The “profile of varying pressures [is]
suitable to softly lift the heated glass sheet” and “abate the effects of gravity
which cause the formed glass sheet to sag” during transport. Id. at Abstract.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner identifies nothing in Ritz (or any
other applied reference) that suggests “prevent[ing] air flow at lateral
locations unoccupied by the formed glass sheet[.]” App. Br. 13.

1 US 5,147,439, issued September 15, 1992.
Appeal 2012-005648
Application 11/692,429

4
On this record, we reverse the decision of the Examiner.

REVERSED

kmm