Ex Parte Joseph et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

14152247 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/152,247 01/10/2014
22928 7590 10/02/2018
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Albert Joseph II
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.
SP08-258A 4744
EXAMINER
FRANKLIN, JODI COHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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 MICHAEL ALBERT JOSEPH II
and STEVEN EDWARD DeMARTIN0 1
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,24 7
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,
and AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 46-58, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a method of producing a
glass sheet and a glass manufacturing system that uses a scoreless separation
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicant, is said to be Coming
Incorporated. Appeal Brief dated May 4, 2016 ("App. Br."), at 2.
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
device. The Appellants' Figure 8, reproduced below, illustrates an
exemplary glass manufacturing system, according to one embodiment of the
invention, utilizing a scoreless separating apparatus to shear a moving glass
sheet and remove the outer edges therefrom. Spec. ,r,r 12-13.
Appellants' Figure 8 is a perspective view of a
scoreless separating apparatus according to one
embodiment of the invention.
The Appellants disclose that:
In operation, the separation devices 703a and 703b each apply
an external stress to generate a stress profile within the moving
glass sheet 705 where the stress profile produces a crack which
is formed in a predefined location within the moving glass sheet
705 to separate and remove the outer edges 706a and 706b
without needing to score the glass sheet 705.
Spec. ,r 29.
The Appellants disclose that separation devices 703a and 703b
include, inter alia:
2
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
(iii) at least two pairs of stabilizing rolls 908a-908d that control
a crack propagation wavefront 958 after the crack 962 is formed
within the moving glass sheet 705 and also direct the sheared-
off edge 706a or 706b away from a remaining portion of the
moving glass sheet 705'; (iv) at least one pair of re-directing
rolls 910a-9I0d and 912a-9I2d that further direct the sheared-
off edge 706a and 706b away from the remaining portion of the
moving glass sheet 705'; [and] (v) at least one pair of air
bearings 914a-914d, 916a-916d and 918a-918d that further
direct the sheared-off edge 706a and 706b away from the
remaining portion of the moving glass sheet 705' ....
Spec. ,r 38.
Independent claims 46 and 53 are reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
46. A method for producing a glass sheet, said method
comprising the steps of:
causing the glass sheet to travel in a traveling direction;
separating the glass sheet which is moving using a
scoreless separation device which comprises a separation
mechanism that generates a stress profile within the moving
glass sheet that produces a crack in a predefined location
within the moving glass sheet to shear off an edge of the
moving glass sheet;
breaking and collecting the edge, which is performed
after the edge has been sheared off of the moving glass sheet;
constraining the edge, by engaging opposite surfaces at
corresponding positions in the travel direction, after it has
been sheared off of the moving glass sheet and before it is
broken and collected; and
winding the remaining portion of the moving glass sheet
onto a take-up roller.
53. A glass manufacturing system comprising:
3
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
a scoreless separation device that generates a stress
profile within the moving glass sheet where the stress profile
produces a crack which is subsequently formed in a predefined
location within the moving glass sheet to shear off an edge of
the moving glass sheet;
a conveyance mechanism having a travel path extending
in a traveling direction leading to the scoreless separation
device, and a travel path leading away from the scoreless
separation device; and
a cullet bin to collect the sheared-off edge after it has
been broken, the cullet bin being located along the travel path
leading away from the scoreless separation device;
a constraining device for engaging, from opposite
surfaces at corresponding positions in the travel direction, the
edge after it has been sheared off of the moving glass sheet, the
constraining device being located along the travel path
between the scoreless separation device and the cullet bin; and
a take-up roller on which there is wound the remaining
portion of the moving glass sheet.
App. Br., Claims Appendix.
The following rejections are presented for review on appeal:
(1) claims 46, 47, 49--53, and 55-58 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Ostendarp et al. 2 in view of Herve et al. 3 and Mouly et
al.;4
(2) claims 48 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Ostendarp in view of Herve and Mouly, and further in view of Curtze et al. 5
2 US 6,502,423 Bl, issued January 7, 2003 ("Ostendarp").
3 US 2008/0264994 Al, published October 30, 2008 ("Herve").
4 US 4,749,400, issued June 7, 1988 ("Mouly").
5 US 3,244,337, issued April 5, 1966 ("Curtze").
4
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (I)
a. Claims 46, 47, 49--51, 53, and 55-57
The Examiner finds that Ostendarp discloses a method and apparatus
for producing a glass sheet from molten glass. Ans. 2. 6 Ostendarp's Figure
1, reproduced below, illustrates an apparatus according to the disclosed
invention.
Ostendarp' s Figure 1 is a side view of an apparatus
for making glass panes according to the invention.
According to the invention disclosed in Ostendarp, edge cutting
device 50 and cutting device 52 are arranged above transport device 40.
Ostendarp, col. 7, 11. 17-19. Glass borders 5a, 5b are cut off with edge
cutting device 50 and are broken with edge breaking device 57. Ostendarp,
col. 7, 11. 28-30.
6 Examiner's Answer dated November 7, 2016.
5
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
The Examiner finds that Ostendarp does not disclose edge directing
means for glass borders 5a, 5b that constrain the borders or edges as
claimed. Final Act. 4. 7 The Examiner, however, finds that Mouly discloses
a similar method of severing edges from a moving glass sheet wherein the
severed edges are directed downwards, similar to Ostendarp, using a wheel
126 for directing the severed edge away from the remaining glass and into a
collector. Final Act. 4, 6; see also Ans. 3--4. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Ostendarp's method with a pair of wheels or rollers to ensure that each
severed edge is appropriately directed to the collector as taught by Mouly.
Final Act. 4, 6; see also Ans. 4. Although Mouly only discloses a single
wheel 126, the Examiner finds that "[a]dding an additional wheel for the
exact same purpose of directing the glass is a mere duplication of parts" and
is not a patentable distinction. Adv. Act. 2; 8 see also Ans. 4.
The Appellants argue that "'mere duplication of parts has no
patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced."'
App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA
1960). In this case, the Appellants argue:
[A]ccording to one embodiment shown in FIG. 9A, rollers
910a,c, rollers 912a,c, air bearings 916a,c, and air bearings
918a,c, stabilize the cut off edge 706a from opposite sides
thereof. [9J By such example mechanisms, the cut off edge is
7 Final Office Action dated October 6, 2015.
8 Advisory Action dated February 5, 2016.
9 Claim 53 recites, in relevant part, that the constraining device is located
"along the travel path between the scoreless separation device and the cullet
bin." App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). The Appellants
disclose that the separation device comprises, inter alia, rollers 91 Oa,c,
6
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
much better prevented from disturbing the separation occurring
at 908a,c, which leads to stronger edges in the remaining
portion 705' of the glass sheet.
App. Br. 10. Thus, "[b ]y engaging opposite surfaces, instead of only one as
in Mouly," the Appellants argue that "the edge is better constrained so that it
does not disturb the separating and, thus, leads to higher strength edges in
the remaining portion." App. Br. 12.
The Examiner finds that the Appellants do not present any evidence
showing that constraining the edge by engaging opposite surfaces, as
opposed to engaging only one edge, provides an unexpected result. Ans. 9;
see also In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) ("Argument in the
brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.").
The Appellants also argue that Mouly biases the wheel 126 from one
side with a pressure cylinder or spring. According to the Appellants, such an
arrangement allows variability in the position of the wheel 126 relative to
the edge 114 as the edge moves away from the glass sheet G. The
Appellants argue that adding a roller on the opposite side of the severed edge
portion would inhibit movement of the pressure cylinder and would
eliminate Mouly's ability to accommodate variability in the position of the
edge 114. App. Br. 12.
rollers 912a,c, air bearings 916a,c, and air bearings 918a,c. Spec. ,r 38.
Thus, rollers 910a,c, rollers 912a,c, air bearings 916a,c, and air bearings
918a,c are not "between the scoreless separation device and the cullet bin" as
recited in claim 53, but rather form part of the separation device. App. Br.,
Claims Appendix ( emphasis added).
7
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
Again, the Examiner finds that the Appellants do not present any
evidence to support their argument. Ans. 8; see also Schulze, 346 F.2d at
602.
On balance, the weight of the evidence weighs in favor of the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the obviousness rejection
of claims 46 and 53 is sustained. 10
The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of claims 47, 49--51, and 55-57. Therefore, the
obviousness rejection of claims 4 7, 49-51, and 55-57 also is sustained.
b. Claims 52 and 58
Claim 58 recites "[t]he glass manufacturing system of Claim 53,
wherein the separation device further comprises a cutter which cuts or
partially cuts a coating on the moving glass sheet prior to shearing the edge
from the moving glass sheet." App. Br., Claims Appendix.
10 The Appellants present the following argument in the Reply Brief for the
first time on appeal:
[T]here is no evidence or reasoning that more than one wheel is
necessary, or even beneficial, in properly directing the cut off
edge to the collection bin .... Thus, one of ordinary skill in the
art following the teachings of Ostendarp and Mouly as a whole,
would not have found it obvious to make any more precise,
accurate, or proper, the directing of scrap glass as sufficiently
taught by Mouly.
Reply Brief dated January 5, 2017, at 5.
The Appellants' argument is not responsive to an argument raised for
the first time in the Examiner's Answer. Moreover, the Appellants do not
show good cause why the argument could not have been raised in the Appeal
Brief. Therefore, the Appellants' argument is untimely and will not be
considered on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2015).
8
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
The Appellants argue that "neither Ostendarp nor Herve disclose that
there is a coating on the glass sheet, let alone the method of cutting or
partially cutting the coating prior to shearing the edge from the moving glass
sheet." App. Br. 11.
The Examiner concludes that claim 5 8 recites an apparatus, not a
coated glass sheet. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that "the prior art
need only be capable of cutting a coating" to satisfy the limitation of claim
58. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that
wheel 131 in Herve creates an initiation crack in a glass sheet and would be
capable of cutting through a coating on the glass sheet. Ans. 7.
Claim 52 recites "[t]he method of Claim 46, wherein the separation
device further comprises a cutter which cuts or partially cuts a coating on
the moving glass sheet prior to shearing the edge from the moving glass
sheet." App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). The Examiner
concludes that claim 52, which is a method claim, does not recite an active
step of cutting a coating. Ans. 7. Thus, to the extent that Herve does not
disclose that wheel 131 cuts a glass coating, claim 52 does not require a
glass coating to be cut in the claimed method.
The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's
interpretation of claims 52 and 58. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of
claims 52 and 58 is sustained.
2. Rejection (2)
The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's factual
findings or legal conclusions as to Curtze in the rejection of claims 48 and
54. Rather, the Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to explain how
Curtze cures the deficiencies in Ostendarp, Herve, and Mouly. App. Br. 14.
9
Appeal 2017-011548
Application 14/152,247
For the reasons discussed above, there are no deficiencies in
Ostendarp, Herve, or Mouly that require curing by Curtze. Therefore, the
obviousness rejection of claims 48 and 54 is sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
10