Ex Parte BUELLESFELD et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

14294967 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/294,967 06/03/2014 Frank BUELLESFELD
27623 7590 08/22/2018
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
0009965USU/4422E 9113
EXAMINER
DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2018 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 FRANK BUELLESFELD and RALF BIERTUEMPFEL
Appeal2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9, 20, and 22-24. 3 We have
1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed June 3, 2014 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action dated June 20, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal
Brief filed March 6, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated July
25, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Appellant's Reply Brief filed September 25, 2017
("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Schott AG, which, according to the Appeal
Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 16-19 have been allowed. Final Act. 5. The Examiner indicates
claim 21 as including allowable subject matter. Id. at 1. The identification
of claim 20 as allowable if rewritten in independent form (id. at 5) appears to
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods for redrawing glass
(see, e.g., claims 1 and 20). According to the Inventors, redrawing of glass
is known, but it has been difficult to redraw flat components. Spec. ,r,r 3, 6.
In view of this, the Inventors disclose methods that can produce glass
components having an increased width to thickness ratio in comparison to
the blanks they are made from by maintaining blank edge regions at a lower
temperature than a center region of a blank. Id. ,r,r 12, 15.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (some indentation added). Limitations
at issue are italicized.
1. A method for redrawing of glass, comprising the steps of:
providing a blank of a glass having an average thickness
(D) and an average width (B),
heating the blank, and
drawing the blank to an average thickness ( d) and an
average width (b ), the blank comprising a center region and two
edge regions, the drawing step further comprising adjusting a
temperature of the blank in a portion of a deformation zone
such that the center region reaches a first temperature (T 1)
that is higher than a second temperature (T2) of the two edge
regions, the deformation zone being a part of the blank that has
a thickness of 1.05*d to 0.95*0, wherein the portion extends
over a height of at least 75% of the deformation zone.
be a typographical error that should have identified claim 21. Appellant
concurs that claims 1-9, 20, and 22-24 stand rejected. See App. Br. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1-8, 20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dunlap; 4 and
II. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Dunlap in view ofMouly; 5 and
III. Provisionally, claims 1 and 20 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claim 1 of application 14/675,301 in view ofCimo. 6, 7
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1-8, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dunlap.
The Examiner finds that Dunlap discloses a method for redrawing
glass that includes, among other things, providing a glass blank, heating the
blank, and drawing the blank. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that Dunlap
discloses adjusting a temperature of the blank in a portion of a deformation
zone such that a center region reaches a higher temperature than edge
regions due to the use of channel members. Id. The Examiner finds that
Dunlap does not explicitly disclose that the portion of the blank having
4 Dunlap et al. US 3,635,687, issued January 18, 1972 ("Dunlap").
5 Mouly, US 4,354,866, issued October 19, 1982 ("Mouly").
6 Cimo et al., US 7,231,786 B2, issued June 19, 2007 ("Cimo").
7 Claims 1 and 20 were also provisionally rejected over claim 1 of
application 14/265,765 in view of Cimo. Final Act. 8. That provisional
rejection is moot because application 14/265,765 was abandoned October 4,
2016.
3
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
cooler edges would extend the length of the deformation zone but concludes
it would have been obvious to do so because the channel members extend
downward from the top of the furnace along the length of the glass blank
until the glass blank is redrawn, and because Dunlap discloses the cooling of
the edge portions increases viscosity and thereby restricts width reduction
while drawing the sheet. Id. at 2-3.
Appellant contends Dunlap does not disclose or suggest cooling a
portion of a blank that extends over a height of at least 75% of a deformation
zone, as recited in claim 1, because Figure 1 of Dunlap only depicts the
channel members 19, 20 in a minor or small part of a deformation zone and
Dunlap focuses on cooling the blank in a relatively small region, as
evidenced by Dunlap's disclosure of coolants and a chimney effect for
cooling. Appeal Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant further argues it would
not have been obvious to modify Dunlap as proposed by the Examiner
because Dunlap discloses edge cooling preferably is achieved via a flow of
air due to a chimney effect. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts the chimney
effect cannot affect the lower portion of the blank even if the channel
members were extended downward because the cooling air would flow
straight along the channel member, which increases in distance from the
blank along a direction from the top of the blank to the bottom. Id. at 6.
According to Appellant, if the lower parts of Dunlap's channel members
were adjusted to follow the edges of a blank, cooling air would leave the
open side of the channel members and flow straight upwards through
Dunlap's furnace, not along the channel members. Id. at 7.
4
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Dunlap discloses a down-
drawing method for producing thin glass sheets in which glass blanks are
heated and then attenuated. Dunlap 1: 1-8. Dunlap discloses:
The reduced temperature of the edge portions increases viscosity
and, thereby restricts the width reduction, and permits a thinner
dimension through the thickness. The glass edge temperature is
reduced by shielding the glass from the heat of the furnace,
and/or the application of additional positive cooling to the edge
portions of the sheets.
Id. 1: 15-20. In other words, Dunlap discloses a relationship between
cooling the edges of a glass blank and the viscosity of the glass, which
restricts width reduction and provides a thinner glass product. This is
achieved in a furnace 10 having channel members 19, 20 for edge cooling.
Id. 2:23-26, Figure 1.
Therefore, consistent with the Examiner's position (Ans. 2-3, 5---6), a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Dunlap's
channel members cool the edges of the blank, which increases the viscosity
of the glass, restricts width reduction, and provides a thinner glass product.
This would have provided a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the length of Dunlap's channel members 19, 20 along the length of
the glass blank as a matter of routine experimentation and design within the
level of the ordinary skill, thus arriving at an arrangement or configuration
within the scope of claim 1. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d
1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is
affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.").
Appellant's arguments regarding Dunlap's chimney effect do not
identify a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellant
does not present evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to support their
5
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
arguments that Dunlap's chimney effect cannot affect the lower portion of
the blank even if the channel members were extended downward, and that
the cooling air would flow straight along the channel members and/or
upwards. Further, Figure 1 depicts the channel members 19, 20 as
increasing in distance from edges of the glass as the latter is drawn, but there
is no indication in Dunlap's disclosure that this would interfere with the
chimney effect or other function of the channel members 19, 20.
Moreover, Dunlap discloses that cooling via the chimney effect is a
preferred embodiment for edge cooling. Dunlap 2:59---62. As stated by the
court in Merck, "the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be
preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including
unpreferred embodiments, must be considered" (Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989), quoting In re Lamberti, 545
F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to consider and modify embodiments of Dunlap that
do not use the chimney effect.
Appellant further asserts paragraphs 73 and 7 4 of the Specification
present surprising advantageous effects when compared to Dunlap because
the width to thickness ratio of a finished blank prepared according to
Appellant's invention is improved by almost 70% over a blank prepared
according to Dunlap's method. Appeal Br. 5---6.
Paragraph 73 of the Specification includes a table presenting results
for a product produced according to Dunlap's method without edge cooling,
a product produced according to Dunlap's method with edge cooling, a
product produced according to Appellant's invention, and a product
produced according to Appellant's invention but with a low deformation
6
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
zone. Paragraph 73, however, does not state the conditions used for these
tests, such as temperature, draw speed, and cooling rate. Therefore, the
specific process parameters used to prepare the products is unknown. The
table of paragraph 73 lists the width and thickness of the initial blanks and
resulting products, but states that blanks of different widths and thicknesses
were used for the products prepared according to Dunlap's disclosure and
those prepared according to Appellant's invention. It is unclear what effect
such differences may have provided. In addition, neither paragraph 73 nor
paragraph 7 4 describe the results as unexpected or surprising.
Appellants must adequately explain what facts or data they are relying
upon. Appellant's general statements as to what the examples show along
with the assertion that the results are unexpected or superior amount
essentially to mere pleading. A mere pleading unsupported by proof or
showing of facts is inadequate. In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718, (CCPA
1974). "It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by
factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the
specification does not suffice." In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (citing In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972)).
Based on the foregoing, the Appellant's contention of unexpected
results is unpersuasive. A preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's obviousness determination for claim 1.
Appellant also argues that claims 22 and 23 are patentable for the
same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. As discussed above, Appellant's
arguments do not identify a reversible error in the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not argue claims 2-8, 20, and 22 separately from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 4--9.
7
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 20, and 22-24.
Rejection II
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dunlap in view of Mouly.
The Examiner finds Dunlap does not disclose a cooling facility
having a distance from a center of a glass blank that decreases with
decreasing width of a blank, as recited in claim 9. Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds Mouly discloses a method for drawing a glass ribbon,
which results in a decreasing width of the ribbon, and that edges of the
glass ribbon are cooled with edge coolers 39 that would be located
closer to a center of the glass ribbon along its length due to the
decreasing width of the ribbon. Id. The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to modify Dunlap so the cooling facilities of
Dunlap have a decreasing distance from a center of a glass blank, as in
Mouly, so close proximity is maintained to the edges as the width of
the blank changes and to provide desired cooling of the edges. Id.
Appellant argues Mouly is non-analogous art because Mouly is
directed float glass manufacturing and Mouly's edge coolers are used
to increase the viscosity of blank edge portions so edge stretching
rolls will have greater traction when moving the blank, which is not
pertinent to controlling dimensional characteristics. Appeal Br. 7-9.
Appellant further asserts that Mouly does not provide any motivation
for one of ordinary skill to apply such edge coolers. Reply Br. 4.
Mouly discloses a method of manufacturing glass formed into a
8
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
flat sheet while supported on a surface of a pool of molten metal (i.e.,
a float process). Mouly 1: 13-16. Mouly discloses the use of edge
coolers 39 to increase the viscosity of the edge portions of the glass
ribbon during the process to permit greater traction for edge stretching
rolls 29, 59 on the glass ribbon and reduce scalloping of the ribbon
edges. Mouly 7:57----68, 8:1-2.
In view of the above, Mouly's edge coolers are not merely used
to increase the viscosity of glass edge portions but to address the
specific problem of scalloped edges that can occur during a float
process using edge stretching rolls. Dunlap does not disclose the use
of edge stretching rolls or suggest that scalloped edges would have
been a problem in Dunlap's process. Therefore, the Examiner has not
articulated a sufficient rationale explaining why it would have been
obvious to modify Dunlap's process in view of Mouly so Dunlap's
cooling facilities (e.g., channel members 19, 20) decrease in distance
from a center of a blank as the width of the blank decreases, as recited
in claim 9. "' [R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex
Inc.,550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claim 9.
Re} ection III
Claims 1 and 20 are provisionally on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of application
9
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
14/675,301 in view of Cimo.
This provisional obviousness type double patenting rejection
was made based on the claims of Application No. 14/675,301, which
issued as US 9,682,883, June 20, 2017. As the claims of the issued
patent were amended subsequent to the Examiner's provisional
rejection in the Final Office Action, that rejection is
moot. Accordingly, we leave it to the Examiner to assess the
propriety of any non-provisional double patenting rejection based on
the claims of US 9,682,883. Cf, Ex parte Jerg, 2012 WL 1375142 at
* 3 (BP AI 2012) (informative) ("Panels have the flexibility to reach or
not reach provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejections.")
( citing Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential)).
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we:
A. affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 20, and 22-24;
B. reverse the § 103 rejection of claim 9; and
C. do not reach the provisional obviousness type double patenting
rejection of claims 1 and 20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9, 20, and 22-24 is
affirmed-in-part.
10
Appeal 2017-011767
Application 14/294,967
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-IN-PART
11