Ex Parte DunifonDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 30, 200810108954 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2008) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation