Ex parte Fehlner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2000

08132554 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2000)

Application for patent filed October 5, 1993. According1
to appellant, the application is a continuation-in-part of
Application 07/853,587 filed March 18, 1992, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte FRANCIS P. FEHLNER
_____________
Appeal No. 1996-2055
Application 08/132,5541
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CAROFF, OWENS and SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CAROFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This decision on appeal relates to the final rejection of
claims 1-14, all the claims pending in appellant’s
application.
Appeal No. 1996-2055
Application No. 08/132,554
2
The claims relate to a method of producing a glass panel
for a liquid crystal display (LCD) device wherein a
continuous, permanent and transparent film is deposited on a
surface of a glass panel upon exposure of the panel to an
atmosphere of an atomized or ionized inert refractory
material, e.g. silica, and the deposited film functions both
as a parting agent during a heat compaction treatment and as a
barrier layer to prevent sodium ion migration during
subsequent processing steps and during operation of the LCD
(see appellant’s specification: page 7, l. 23-30).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method of producing a glass panel for a LCD device
wherein the glass is nominally free of alkali metal oxides,
that is, has no intentionally added alkali metal compound in
its batch, but contains up to about 0.1% by weight Na as an+
impurity, and wherein the method comprises depositing on at
least one surface of a clean glass panel a continuous,
permanent, and transparent barrier layer film from an
atmosphere of an atomized or ionized inert refractory
material, or reactive precursor, the film being greater than
50nm, but not over 500nm, in thickness, and, after depositing
the transparent film on the clean glass panel, stacking the
filmed glass panel with a plurality of the clean, filmed glass
panels to form a stack of adjacent panels, the total film
thickness between each pair of adjacent panels in the stack
being greater than 100nm and subjecting the stack to a heat
treatment to compact the glass, the permanent barrier layer
film on the clean glass panel functioning both as a barrier to
sodium ion migration from the glass and as a parting agent
during the compacting heat treatment.
Appeal No. 1996-2055
Application No. 08/132,554
3
The following references are relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
1. Admissions of prior art (hereinafter referred to by the
acronym PAT) on page 1, line 11-page 2, line 13 of appellant’s
specification.
2. Dockerty et al.(Dockerty) 3,149,949 Sept. 22,
1964
3. Nordberg 3,208,839 Sept. 28,
1965
4. Mizuhashi et al.(Mizuhashi) 4,485,146 Nov. 27,
1984
5. Jenkins et al. (Jenkins) 4,828,880 May 9,
1989
6. Foster et al. (Foster) 5,073,181 Dec. 17,
1991
The rejections applied by the examiner are as follows:
I. Claims 1-8 and 11-14 stand rejected for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined disclosures of PAT,
Foster, Mizuhashi and Nordberg.
II. Claim 9 stands rejected as obvious from the basic
combination of references applied in (I) above, further in
view of Dockerty and Jenkins.
III. Claim 10 stands rejected as obvious from the basic
combination of references applied in (I) above, further in
view of Jenkins.
Based on the record before us, we agree with appellant
that the basic combination of references (PAT, Foster,
Appeal No. 1996-2055
Application No. 08/132,554
4
Mizuhashi, Nordberg) relied upon by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The other references relied upon by the examiner (Dockerty,
Jenkins) do not cure this fundamental deficiency.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain any of the rejections at
issue.
None of the basic references, taken singly or in
combination, teach or suggest that a continuous, permanent and
transparent barrier layer film (which is formed by exposure of
a glass panel to an atmosphere of an atomized or ionized inert
refractory material) can be used both as a parting agent
during a heat compaction treatment and as a permanent barrier
layer to prevent sodium ion migration during subsequent
processing steps and during operation of the ultimate LCD
product.
For instance, while Mizuhashi discloses a silicon oxide
layer which is deposited on a glass surface by techniques,
e.g. sputtering, CVD, etc, similar to those used by appellant,
and functions as a barrier layer to prevent diffusion of
alkali metal ions, we find nothing in the prior art of record
which suggests that this particular type of silicon oxide
Appeal No. 1996-2055
Application No. 08/132,554
5
layer would also be capable of functioning as a parting agent
during a heat compaction treatment.
Furthermore, while the coating taught by Foster serves as
a parting agent, Foster teaches away from using the coating as
a permanent barrier layer by suggesting its removal after use
as a parting agent (see Foster at col. 4, l. 56-57 and claim
1).
Additionally, we find no factual basis to support the
examiner’s conclusion that the Foster coating would be
expected to function as a barrier to sodium ion migration.
The examiner has given no reason, nor are we aware of any, as
to why the coating of Foster, which is particulate in nature,
could be expected to function as such. This deficiency in the
examiner’s reasoning is not cured by resort to the Nordberg
reference since the coating or film of Nordberg, like that of
Foster, is used solely as a parting agent and is colloidal in
nature, produced from a metallic oxide powder dispersed in
water.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner
is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1996-2055
Application No. 08/132,554
6
)
MARC L. CAROFF )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CAROL A. SPIEGEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MLC:hh
MILTON M. PETERSON
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-FR-2-12
CORNING, NY 14831