Ex Parte Berkey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

13916117 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/916,117 06/12/2013
22928 7590 10/25/2018
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adam Charles Berkey
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.
SP09-357A 7988
EXAMINER
HERRING, LISA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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 ADAM CHARLES BERKEY, NIKOLAY ANATOLYEVICH,
and EUNYOUNG PARK
Appeal2017-001412
Application 13/916, 117
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 15. An oral hearing was held
on September 26, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Substitute Specification ("Spec.") filed June 12, 2013; Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") dated November 10, 2015; Appellant's Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") dated April 11, 2016; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
September 9, 2016; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated
November 4, 2016.
2 Appellant is Applicant, Coming Incorporated, which is identified in the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-001412
Application 13/916, 117
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for making glass
sheets. Spec. ,r 1. Conventionally, glass sheets can be made using a forming
body, called an isopipe, which includes a trough portion above a wedge-
shaped portion. Id. ,r 3. In use, glass melt overflows the trough to form
opposing glass ribbons which join at the bottom of the wedge-shaped
portion. Id. According to Appellant, "it is desirable to keep the temperature
difference between the bottom and top of the forming body as low as
possible" to limit thermal stress on the body. Id. ,r 53. However, "it has
been found that the main driver as a stress riser during rapid temperature
change is the temperature difference between the surface and core of the
forming body." Id. ,r 55. Appellant's Specification describes a glass sheet
forming body housed in a heating enclosure formed by oppositely-positioned
plates heated by respective heating element arrays. Id. ,r 57. Heat loss due
to a malfunctioning element is compensated by increasing power to an
adjacent, functioning element. Id. ,r 61. Claim I-the sole independent
claim on appeal-is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for making a glass sheet in an
overflow process, the apparatus comprising:
a forming body having a top, a first side surface, and a
second side surface joining the first side surface at a root,
wherein the forming body is configured such that molten glass
flows over at least part of the first side surface to form a first
glass ribbon, molten glass flows over at least part of the second
side surface to form a second glass ribbon, and the first glass
ribbon and the second glass ribbon fuse at the root to form a
third glass ribbon;
a first side heat plate proximate to the first side surface,
wherein the first side heat plate is configured to radiatively heat
the first side surface;
2
Appeal2017-001412
Application 13/916, 117
a first array of heating elements located behind the first
side heat plate opposite of the first side surface, wherein the
first array of heating elements are configured to heat the first
side heat plate;
a second side heat plate proximate to the second side
surface, wherein the second side heat plate is configured to
radiatively heat the second side surface;
a second array of heating elements located behind the
second heat plate opposite of the second side surface, wherein
the second array of heating elements are configured to heat the
second side heat plate; and
a power supply unit configured to separately monitor,
control and adjust a heating power of individual heating
elements in the first and second arrays of the heating elements;
and the power supply unit further configured to control the
heating power of the individual heating elements of the first and
second arrays such that if the heating power of a
malfunctioning heating element in one of the first and second
arrays decreases to a threshold level, then the heating power of
the adjacent, functioning heating element is increased, such
that an undesirable thermal gradient does not form between a
part of the first side surface or the second side surface across
from the malfunctioning heating element and a bulk of the
forming body under the part of the first side surface or the
second side across from the malfunctioning heating element.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis added to highlight the key
recitation in dispute).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Filippov, 3 Heitmann, 4 and Chong. 5
3 US 2008/0282736 Al, published November 20, 2008 ("Filippov").
4 US 5,291,514, issued March 1, 1994 ("Heitmann").
5 US 6,804,619 Bl, issued October 12, 2004 ("Chong").
3
Appeal2017-001412
Application 13/916, 117
II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Filippov, Heitmann, Chong and Geankoplis. 6
OPINION
Rejection I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellant presents arguments based on
features recited in claim 1, and does not separately argue any remaining
claim. See App. Br. 10-18. We address Appellant's arguments regarding
claim 1 below. Each of claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 15 stands or falls
with claim 1.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Filippov discloses a
glass sheet forming apparatus that includes virtually all of the claimed
features-including an isopipe positioned between first and second heat
plates and controlled first and second heater element arrays-but differs in
that Filippov does not identify the controller as configured to increase power
to an element when an adjacent element is determined to be malfunctioning.
Final Act. 3--4. Rather, Filippov explains that each heating element "is
preferably individually controlled using appropriate well-known heating
control methods and equipment." Filippov ,r 42. Filippov further states that
heating elements are controlled "so that an appropriate temperature profile
may be more easily maintained within the enclosure." Id. The Examiner
finds that Chong teaches a method of regulating individually-controlled
heating elements such that, when one element is determined to be
underperforming, power is increased to adjacent elements to compensate for
6 Geankoplis, C.J., Transport Processes and Unit Operations, Second
Edition, Chapter 4, pp. 205-211.
4
Appeal2017-001412
Application 13/916, 117
the underperforming element. Final Act. 5 (citing Chong 7:22--48). The
Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reason to apply Chong's control scheme to Filippov's apparatus to
compensate for a malfunctioning heater element. Id.
Appellant argues that none of the relied-upon references teaches
mitigating a thermal gradient between a surface and the core of the isopipe.
App. Br. 12-14. Particularly, Appellant argues that Filippov is principally
concerned with minimizing vertical thermal gradient along the length of the
isopipe surface, rather than horizontal gradient between the isopipe surface
and its interior bulk. Id. at 13. On that basis, Appellant contends that the
combined prior art fails to teach the claimed feature that "an undesirable
thermal gradient does not form between a part of the first side surface or the
second side surface across from the malfunctioning heating element and a
bulk of the forming body." Id. Appellant further argues that Filippov
teaches away from the claimed control scheme because, according to
Appellant, increasing power to a heating element adjacent to a
malfunctioning element would exacerbate the vertical thermal gradient. Id.
at 17-18. Appellant also argues that Chong is improperly relied upon
because it is directed to non-analogous art. Id. at 14--16.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error. We
address each argument in tum.
We agree that the Examiner has not pointed to evidence of record that
recognizes a need or desire to minimize thermal gradient between the
isopipe's surface and its core. However, as Appellant explains in the
Specification, minimizing surface-to-core thermal stress in the forming body
is a consequence of operating the controller to increase power to heater
5
Appeal2017-001412
Application 13/916, 117
elements that are adjacent to an element that is malfunctioning. Spec. ,r 61.
Appellant does not point to any other structure or operational capability
necessary to achieve the recited minimization of horizontal gradient. The
fact that the Examiner identifies a reason to provide Filippov's heater
elements with the recited control scheme without reference to horizontal
thermal gradient does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's reasoning.
See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("[T]he motivation in
the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of
the applicant to establish obviousness.").
To teach away, a reference must discourage one of ordinary skill in
the art from following the path set out in the reference, or lead that person in
a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellant depicts a scenario in which a
lower-most heater element fails and power to an adjacent element is
increased, which, according to Appellant, would exacerbate vertical thermal
gradient. App. Br. 16-17. Appellant's annotated copy ofFilippov's Figure
1, depicting that scenario, is reproduced below:
T
6
Appeal2017-001412
Application 13/916, 117
Id. at 17. However, Appellant does not provide detailed reasoning as to why
the depicted scenario would result in an increased vertical thermal gradient.
Nor does Appellant account for the fact that Filippov's heater elements are
arranged to heat a plate positioned between the element array and the
isopipe, which plate necessarily would exhibit some degree of heat
capacitance in the vertical direction. Moreover, Appellant's argument does
not consider the number of heating elements or their spacing. For example,
it is not clear that a vertical temperature gradient would be significantly
impacted where heating elements are closely spaced in the array. Finally,
Appellant does not address alternative scenarios, such as the failure of a
centrally-located element and a corresponding increase of power to each of
its adjacent elements. (Chong teaches compensating for an underperforming
heating element by increasing power to two adjacent elements. Chong 7:35-
38). Appellant's argument concerning one possible scenario involving
failure of a particular heating element in Filippov does not persuade us that
Filippov's interest in minimizing vertical temperature gradient would have
discouraged one of ordinary skill from implementing Chong' s control
scheme to compensate for a malfunctioning element.
"Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art:
(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the
inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved." In re Bigio, 3 81
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant contends that Chong is not
reasonably pertinent to the Inventors' problem because "the considerations
for evenly depositing a semiconducting layer via a LPCVD process are
7
Appeal2017-001412
Application 13/916, 117
completely different from those faced when designing a furnace for heating
a forming body." App. Br. 15. This unelaborated statement, which is
unsupported by citation and analysis of the prior art of record, does not alone
refute the Examiner's finding that Chong's disclosed heater element control
is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the Inventors-namely,
control of a heater element array surrounding a space to be heated,
particularly in the event of a malfunctioning heater element.
Notwithstanding that Chong addresses that problem in the context of a
different field of endeavor, Appellant does not present persuasive argument
against the Examiner's finding that Chong's heater element control scheme
would have been pertinent to the problem of a malfunctioning heater
element addressed by the Inventors.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant's arguments do not reveal
reversible error. Rejection I is sustained.
Rejection II
With regard to Rejection II, Appellant solely relies on the same
arguments presented against Rejection I. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection
II for the reasons set forth above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 15 is 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