Ex Parte Kanno et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 7, 2009

10600658 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 7, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RYOU KANNO, TOSHIMITSU SATO, TAKASHI HIROTSU,
TOMOHIRO SUWA, and ISAO SAITO
____________

Appeal 2009-009363
Application 10/600,658
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: December 7, 2009
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and PETER F. KRATZ,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4 through 6, 11, 12, and 25 through 33, all of the claims pending in
the above-identified application. A hearing was held on November 19, 2009. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2009-009363
Application 10/600,658

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to methods for positioning and bending a
glass plate (Spec. 1, ll. 3-5 and claims1, 4 through 6, 11, 12, and 25 through 33). These
methods not only accurately position heated and softened glass plates, but also minimize
the heated and softened glass plates from being deformed prior to being bent to produce
tempered glass plates having desired curved shapes (Spec. 1-4). Further details of the
appealed methods are recited in representative claims 1, 6, and 28 reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Amended Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed May 6, 2008:

1. A method for positioning a glass plate, comprising:
conveying a glass plate by a roller conveyor including a
plurality of rollers, each roller having a rolling axis;

determining a first posture of the glass plate being conveyed
by the roller conveyor.

comparing the first posture to a previously stored reference
posture; and

moving at least one of the plurality of rollers in a direction
substantially parallel to the rolling axis when the at least one of the
plurality of rollers is in contact with the glass plate in conveyance, to
position the glass plate so as to conform the glass plate to the
previously stored reference posture,

wherein the moving the at least one of the plurality of rollers
includes moving each of the at least one of the plurality of rollers
independently with respect to each other roller of the plurality of
rollers.

6. A method for positioning a glass plate, comprising:
conveying a glass plate by a roller conveyor including a
plurality of rollers, each roller having a rolling axis;

2
Appeal 2009-009363
Application 10/600,658

determining a first posture of the glass plate being conveyed by
the roller conveyor;

comparing the first posture to a previously stored reference
posture; and

simultaneously moving at least two of the plurality of rollers in
a direction substantially parallel to the rolling axis when the at least
two of the plurality of rollers are in contact with the glass plate in
conveyance, to position the glass plate so as to conform the glass plate
to the previously stored reference posture.

28. A method for positioning a glass plate, comprising:
conveying a glass plate by a roller conveyor including a
plurality of actuators and a plurality of rollers, each roller having a
rolling axis;

determining a first posture of the glass plate being conveyed
by the roller conveyor;

comparing the first posture to a previously stored reference
posture; and

moving at least two of the plurality of rollers in a direction
substantially parallel to the rolling axis when the at least two of the
plurality of rollers are in contact with the glass plate in conveyance, to
position the glass plate so as to conform the glass plate to previously
stored reference posture,

wherein each of the at least two of the plurality of rollers is
moving by a different one of the plurality of actuators.

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following sole prior art reference at page 4 of the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed June 30, 2008:
Letemps US 5,226,942 Jul. 13, 1993
3
Appeal 2009-009363
Application 10/600,658

Appellants request review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4
through 6, 11, 12, and 25 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Letemps1 (App. Br. 7 and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”), mailed August 27, 2008, 3). Appellants traverse the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection, arguing, inter alia, the Examiner’s failure to
demonstrate that Letemps would have suggested moving at least one or two
of the plurality of roller in a direction substantially parallel to the rolling axis
when the at least one or two of the plurality of rollers is in contact with the
glass plate in conveyance, to position the glass plate so as to conform the
glass plate to the previously stored reference posture as required by claims 1,
6, and 28 (App. Br. 23-32 and Reply Br. 4-21).
ISSUE AND CONCLUSION
The dispositive question is: Have Appellants identified reversible
error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art,
armed with the teachings of Letemps, would have been led to move at least
one or two of the plurality of roller in a direction substantially parallel to the
rolling axis when the at least one or two of the plurality of rollers is or are in
contact with the glass plate in conveyance, to position the glass plate so as to
conform the glass plate to the previously stored reference posture in
Letemps’s glass plate positioning and bending method within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? On this record, we answer this question in the
affirmative.

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 4 through 6, 1, 12,
and 25 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the disclosure of
Letemps (Ans. 4).
4
Appeal 2009-009363
Application 10/600,658

FACTUAL FINDINGS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND ANALYSIS
We reverse the aforementioned § 103(a) rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief filed and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
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, if any. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). As stated by our reviewing
court in In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473 (Fed. Cir. 1988):
[T]he full field of the invention must be considered; for
the person of ordinary skill is charged with knowledge of the
entire body of technological literature, including that which
might lead away from the claimed invention….

Appellants bear the procedural burden of showing reversible error in
the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can
overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence
of secondary indicia of nonobviousness”) (citation and internal quote
omitted).
Here, Letemps discloses a method of bending a glass sheet, which
comprises detecting the effective position of the glass sheet via a high speed
camera as the glass sheet is brought into a reheating furnace in a feed
conveyor having rollers, comparing the detected position of the heated
(softened) glass sheet with a previously memorized desired position of a
5
Appeal 2009-009363
Application 10/600,658

glass plate via a computer, and moving a curving tool having rollers and a
shaping bed based on a signal corresponding to the angle difference and/or
the transverse shift (cols. 5 and 6). Letemps solves the problem associated
with positioning heated (softened) glass plates by moving the curving tool
relative to the heated (softened) glass plates, rather than moving the heated
(softened) glass plates relative to the curving tool (cols. 1 and 2). That is,
Letemps moves the curving tool having rollers in an angle (not shown to be
substantially parallel to the rolling axis) relative to a conveyer having rollers
to accommodate the angle difference between the detected position and the
previously memorized position to properly receive a glass plate in
conveyance by the curving tool (id).
Contrary to these teachings of Letemps, the claims on appeal require
moving or positioning the glass plate in conveyance from a detected posture
to the previously stored reference posture via placing the glass plate in
contact with at least one or two rollers moving in a direction substantially
parallel to the rolling axis. As correctly identified by Appellants at pages
25-26 of the Appeal Brief, the Examiner has not demonstrated that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to move at least one or
two of the plurality of roller, which are in contact with the glass plate in
conveyance, in a direction substantially parallel to the rolling axis so as to
place the glass plate in the previously stored reference posture contrary to
the teachings of Letemps. It follows that Appellants have shown that the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection is not supported by sufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness.
6
Appeal 2009-009363
Application 10/600,658

Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4
through 6, 11, 12, and 25 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Letemps.

ORDER/DECISION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED
tc

OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

7