Ex Parte Dunifon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2008

10108954 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS A. DUNIFON
____________

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: June 30, 2008
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Primary Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11 and 13-19. 1 We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 In rendering this decision we have considered the Appellant’s arguments
presented in the Appeal Brief dated October 29, 2007.

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954

Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of conveying a glass
sheet from a furnace to a press bending operation. The method comprises
the utilization of locator pads for directing the glass sheet to the bending
press. (Spec. 2). The Specification, pages 10-12, discloses:
The locating system 10 works by simultaneous motion of
the locator pads 24 in two directions of motion. First, the pads
are moving along rails 22 in direction D1, which is also the
direction of the glass sheet 12 as it exits the furnace 14. A
sensing system, e.g. a photoelectric eye (not shown) detects the
glass sheet 12 exiting the furnace 14 and, through a computerized
control system (not shown), causes the locator system 10 to
rapidly accelerate in the direction of travel D1. The computer
control system also directs the locator system 10 to move arm 34
transverse to the rails 22 to thus move the locator pad 24 in the
direction D2. It should be noted that the pads 24 move in toward
the glass sheet 12, thus the direction of travel D2 will be reversed
180 degrees for the pad 24 on the opposing side of the glass sheet
12. This movement in direction D2 causes the pads to engage the
glass sheet 12, and through the unique contact surface, orient the
glass sheet in the proper position for press bending. . . .
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate one of the rails or tracks 22 upon
which the locator pads 24 move. In order to allow movement in
both direction D1 and direction D2, the system employs two
drive assemblies 36, 38. It has been found that the system
preferably incorporates two essentially separate drive
mechanisms, in order to allow the entire carriage assembly to
move toward the pressing device, while simultaneously moving
the pads into contact with the glass sheet to properly orient the
glass sheet. . . . While a rack and pinion system is illustrated
herein, other known types of gearing or linkage systems may be
utilized to drive the pad with arm 34 in direction D2 and in the
opposite direction of direction D2.

The second drive assembly 38 uses carriage motor 40 in
conjunction with a right angle gearbox 42 to drive a rack 48 and
2

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954

pinion 50 (see Fig. 7) to thus drive the carriage (and the pads) in
direction D1 (and in the opposite direction of direction D1.)
Again, the nature of the gearing system is not essential to the
invention. The rack and pinion system utilized herein describes a
preferred embodiment. Any gearing system allowing transport of
the pads 24 in the proper direction is acceptable.

Thus the two drive assemblies 36, 38 in combination
provide for motion of the pads in both directions D1 and D2. This
allows the pads 24 to both travel with the glass sheet 12 in
direction D1, and to also travel transverse to the glass sheet 12 in
direction D2 (or opposite direction D2 for the opposing pad).

Claim 11 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
11. A method of conveying a glass sheet from a furnace to a
press bending operation in a desired alignment, wherein the glass
sheet has a leading edge, a trailing edge and at least one side edge
there between, said method comprising:

providing a pair of locator pads, each of said pads comprising a
continuous surface and being configured to contact a distinctly shaped
portion of the outer periphery of the glass sheet so that the locator
pads can engage the glass sheet in a proper orientation;

providing separate first and second drive assemblies;

moving the pair of locator pads in a first direction of motion
toward the press bending apparatus with the first drive assembly,
while simultaneously moving the pair of locator pads in a second
direction of motion toward the glass sheet with the second drive
assembly; and

engaging the glass sheet with the locator pads to properly align
the glass sheet for subsequent processing, wherein a portion of the
continuous surface of the locator pad engages a side edge of the glass
3

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954

sheet and another portion of the continuous surface of the locator pad
engages one of: the leading edge of the glass sheet in the first
direction of motion and the trailing edge of the glass sheet in the first
direction of motion.

Claims 11 and 13-19 stand rejected as follows:
A) Claims 11, 13-15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Seymour, U.S. Patent No. 3,846,104 dated January 10, 1973
or Nitschke, U.S. Patent No. 3,574,588 dated December 22, 1967.
B) Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Seymour in view of Kramer, U.S. Patent No. 5,066,321
dated November 19, 1991, or Nitschke in view of Kramer.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability.2 However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is not patentable within the meaning of
§§ 102 and103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejections. 3

2 Appellant’s arguments (and, therefore, our analysis) focus on independent
claim 11. When addressing the rejections of claims 11, 13-15, and 19,
Appellant has not provided separate arguments addressed to a specific claim.
Therefore, our analysis will be limited to claim 11. As indicated below, we
have considered all separate arguments for patentability of the rejected
claims.
3 Appellant and the Examiner have acknowledged that the Nitschke
reference contains substantially the same disclosure as the Seymour
reference. Therefore, Appellant and the Examiner have limited their
discussion to the Seymour reference. We will do likewise.
4

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that a prior art reference
describe each and every limitation of a claimed invention with “sufficient
specificity” to establish anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). To anticipate, a reference must
sufficiently describe the claimed invention to have placed the invention in
the possession of the public. See Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson
& Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of
whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious] need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007); see also DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co.
Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2006)(“The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be
combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common
knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”); In
re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) (“Having established that this
knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth
by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge
5

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954

and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any
specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”).
Appellant contends that the claimed assembly utilizes a linkage
system to allow the assembly to provide impetus for motion in both the first
and second directions. Appellant contends that claim 11 indicates that the
drive assemblies are separate and are not shown by the applied references.
Appellants contend that Seymour’s interlocking arrangement of the
collapsible frame and gearing is not separate as claimed. (App. Br. 11).
The issue presented is: Did Appellant identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13-15, and 19 under § 102? We answer
this question in the negative. The issue turns on whether Seymour describes
separate drive assemblies for the described linkage system to allow the
assembly to provide impetus for motion in both a first and a second
direction.
The Examiner found (Ans. 3-4):
Seymour discloses a system for conveying glass sheets for
shaping and cooling thereof. Seymour discloses conveying glass
sheets through a furnace (12) so as to heat the glass to its
deformation temperature (Col. 4, lines 41-47), heated glass sheets
are then transferred to a shaping station (16) for shaping.
Seymour discloses conveying the glass from the furnace to the
shaping station using a system (see fig. 9 and co1.8 line 55 to
co1.9, line 42) wherein locator pads (engaging fingers 132)
which comprise a continuous surface which are configured to
contact a distinctly shaped portion of the glass sheet (g) on its
outer periphery (see fig. 9) move the glass sheet from the furnace
to the shaping station. The pairs of locator pads are moved as
showing in fig. 9 from a retracted position to an extended
position-the movement clearly includes simultaneous movement
6

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954

toward the glass sheet and also toward the shaping direction.
When locator pads of Seymour engage the glass sheet the
continuous surface of the pads (132) can be seen to engage the
glass along a side edge and either a leading edge or a trailing
edge as is shown in fig. 9.

The Seymour reference is evidence that it was known by persons of
ordinary skill in the art to convey a glass sheet from a furnace to a press
bending operation utilizing locator pads for directing the glass sheet.
According to Seymour, pairs of locator pads are moved from a retracted
position to an extended position. The movement of the pads includes
simultaneous movement toward the glass sheet (D2) and also toward the
shaping direction (D1). That is the linkages of Seymour which drive the
pads toward the glass sheet (D2) and also toward the shaping direction (D1)
(co1.8, l. 55 to co1.9, l.42) . The linkage system of Seymour functions in the
same manner as the claimed invention. Indeed, the Specification at pages
10-12 reveals that the claimed invention, like Seymour’s linkages, employs
“separate drive mechanisms, in order to allow the entire carriage assembly to
move toward the pressing device, while simultaneously moving the pads into
contact with the glass sheet to properly orient the glass sheet.” Thus, the
present record establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art was in
possession of the claimed systems that drive pads toward the glass sheet
(D2) and also toward the shaping direction (D1) as evidenced by Seymour.
We note that Appellant has not argued that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would not have recognized that the use of separate drive
7

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954

assemblies to move pads in separate directions was unknown prior to this
invention.
Regarding the rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
affirm these rejections advanced by the Examiner. Appellant’s argument for
separately rejected claims 16-18 merely presents a conclusory statement and
does not address the rejection as set forth by the Examiner. In this regard,
Appellant does not assert non-obviousness based on the additional
limitations set forth claims 16-18 subject to this rejection by explaining how
the additional reference applied thereto by the Examiner fails to establish the
obviousness of the additional features recited in these separately rejected
claims. Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive as to
independent claim 11, it follows that these arguments are unpersuasive as to
claims 16-18.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
all grounds of rejection presented in this appeal.
ORDER
The rejections of claims 11, 13-15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

8

Appeal 2008-2367
Application 10/108,954

PL Initial:
Sld

MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC
FOUR SEAGATE – EIGHTH FLOOR
TOLEDO, OH 43604
9