Ex Parte Fredholm

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2018

14295848 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/295,848 06/04/2014
22928 7590 04/24/2018
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Allan Mark Fredholm
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.
SP09-038 3788
EXAMINER
SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2018 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 ALLAN M. FREDHOLM 1
Appeal2017-006654
Application 14/295,848
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MARK NAGUMO, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection2 of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Coming, Incorporated. (Appeal
Brief, filed October 11, 2016 ("App. Br."), 2.)
2 Final Office Action mailed March 11, 2016 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR.").
Appeal2017-006654
Application 14/295,848
A. Introduction 3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to a "glass manufacturing system
and method for forming a high quality thin glass sheet which has a thickness
less than about 2 mm and more preferably less than about 100 µm." (Spec.
i-f 2.) These glass sheets may be used in "personal computer (PC) monitors,
television (TV) monitors, personal digital assistants (PD As) and other hand
held devices." (Id. i-f 3.)
Representative claim 1 reads:
1. A method for manufacturing a glass sheet, said
method comprising the steps of:
providing a molten glass;
rolling the molten glass between two rolling rolls to form
the glass sheet;
heating the glass sheet in a temperature controlled
environment which has a cross temperature gradient located
below the two rolling rolls such that two outer edges of the
glass sheet are exposed to a hotter temperature than a central
portion of the glass sheet,
wherein the temperature controlled environment provides
the cross temperature gradient to stretch the glass sheet such
that the glass sheet has a substantially constant thickness.
(App. Br. 17 (emphases added).)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
• Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mueller (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2008/0184741, published August
3 Application 14/295,848, Glass Manufacturing System and Method for
Forming a High Quality Thin Glass Sheet, filed June 4, 2014. We refer to
the "' 110 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2017-006654
Application 14/295,848
7, 2008) and Blevins (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2007/0062219, published March 22, 2007).
o Dependent claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mueller, Blevins,
and Kaiser (U.S. Patent No. 6,896,646 B2, issued May
24, 2005).
o Dependent claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mueller, Blevins,
and Kato (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2009/0226733, published September 10, 2009).
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Claim 1
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Blevins teaches or suggests
a method for manufacturing a glass sheet "such that two outer edges of the
glass sheet are exposed to a hotter temperature than a central portion of the
glass sheet" as recited in claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Blevins' discussion that "the
first and second S-warp portions (25a, 25b) of the ribbon (15) are heated,
and/or the center portion of the ribbon is cooled" teaches or suggests the
limitation at issue. Ans. 2 (citing Blevins i-fi-129--30)4 ; see FR. 2-3 (citing the
same). The Examiner reasons that paragraph 29 of Blevins "explicitly
teaches heating the edges of the glass sheet while cooling the center, which
4 Examiner's Answer mailed January 25, 2017 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2017-006654
Application 14/295,848
would inherently produce higher temperatures at the edges due to the
heating." Ans. 3. While Blevins describes the edges of a glass sheet being
heated and/or the center portion of the glass sheet being cooled, the
Examiner has not explained why such heating and/or cooling would
necessarily result in the edges being hotter than the center. The Examiner
appears to have overlooked or underestimated the effect of edge rollers 27a,
27b, which cool the edges 19a, 19b of glass sheet 15. While heating the
edges would certainly raise the temperature of the edges after being cooled
by the edge rollers, and cooling the center would reduce the temperature of
the center, such adjustments would not necessarily lead to the result that the
edges are "exposed to a hotter temperature than" the center as required by
claim 1. A temperature difference between the edges and the center also
does not necessarily result in the edges being "exposed to a hotter
temperature than" the center as required by claim 1. "Inherency may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to
establish inherency." Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378,
13 84 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
Moreover, Blevins describe "adjust[ing] heating and cooling to insure
that ... [the] edges are not greatly cooler than the center" to "reduce the
temperature differences across the widths WS of the S-warp portions[.]"
Blevins i-fi-129, 80. Blevins shows a temperature profile of a glass sheet with
reduced or eliminated S-warp in Fig. 4. As can be seen, the figure shows
that the center portion of a glass sheet is at a higher temperature compared to
the right-hand edge of the glass sheet.
4
Appeal2017-006654
Application 14/295,848
We therefore cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. The
record does not show that the Examiner has made findings about any of the
other references that cure the defects of Blevins. The rejections of claims
dependent from claim 1 are likewise not sustained.
Independent claim 9 recites, in part, a method for manufacturing a
glass sheet "such that a central portion of the glass sheet has a first
temperature lower than a second temperature of two outer edges of the glass
sheet." (Claims Appendix, App. Br. 18.) For the reasons provided with
regard to claim 1, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 9
based on Mueller and Blevins. The rejections of claims dependent from
claim 9 are likewise not sustained.
C. ORDER
The rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
5