Ex Parte Krasnov et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201613064600 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/064,600 04/01/2011 23117 7590 05/11/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alexey Krasnov 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. JAR-3691-2327 1859 EXAMINER VAN SELL, NATHAN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1783 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/11/2016 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXEY KRASNOV, WILLEM DEN BOER, SCOTT V. THOMSEN, and JEAN-MARC LEMMER Appeal2014-001866 Application 13/064,600 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 In our opinion below, we refer to the Specification filed April 1, 2011 (Spec.), Final Office Action mailed February 15, 2013 (Final), the Appeal Brief filed July 17, 2013 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed September 27, 2013 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed November 27, 2013 (Reply Br.). Appeal2014-001866 Application 13/064,600 Appellants2 appeal the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Weber. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). We REVERSE. The claims are directed to a coated article including a coating supported by a substrate. See, e.g., claims 1 and 11. The coating has a micron or sub-micron (claim 11) or 0.3-3 micron (claim 1) surface texture that scatters different wavelengths of light to different angles. Id. The coated article is particularly suited for use in greenhouse windows. Spec. i-f 16. According to Appellants, textured glass has been used for greenhouse windows, but the surface texture has had features of tens or hundreds of microns in size. Spec. i-fi-1 3--4. This sizing promotes considerable light scattering of all components of sunlight according to the laws of geometric optics. Id. Appellants' coating has a texture with smaller surface features on the order of 0.3-3 microns that promote a differentiated scattering of light. Spec. i1 6. The smaller features primarily scatter wavelengths of light greater than about 800 nm (IR light) to shallow angles of less than 20 degrees relative to the glass substrate but primarily scatter lower wavelengths of light under 800 nm (including visible light) to steeper angles of more than 20 degrees relative to the glass substrate. Claims 1 and 11; Spec. i-fi-1 5---6. This differential scattering prevents the IR radiation from overheating the greenhouse while delivering diffuse blue, visible, and near- IR light to the plants in the greenhouse. Spec. i-f 16. 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Guardian Industries Corp., Appeal Br. 3. 3 Weber et al., US 2009/0323180 Al, published Dec. 31, 2009. 2 Appeal2014-001866 Application 13/064,600 All of the claims require a coating with a thin-film layer textured to have micron or sub-micron (claim 11) or 0.3-3 micron (claim 1) surface features that primarily scatter light of different wavelengths at different angles. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A coated article, comprising: a coating supported by a glass substrate, wherein the coating includes at least one thin-film layer that is textured so as to have surface features on the order of 0.3-3 microns that cause (a) light having a wavelength of greater than 800 nm incident thereon to primarily scatter to angles less than 20 degrees relative to a major surface of the substrate and (b) light having a wavelength of less than 800 nm incident thereon that passes through the coated article to primarily scatter to angles greater than 20 degrees relative to the major surface of the substrate. Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 16. OPI1'JION Weber teaches films that can be used in horticultural applications (e.g., greenhouses) that possess selective reflection and transmission properties. Weber i-f 23. The films "filter out or transmit specific wavelengths of light that are optimal for controlled plant growth." Weber i-f 516. For example, one can optimize the film to "filter out" heat-producing infrared (IR) and non-efficient visible solar wavelengths. Id. But Weber's filtering is based on reflecting a portion of the sunlight while transmitting another portion. Weber i-f 521 (the film reflects or transmits the greater than 800 nm radiation while doing the opposite to the less than 800 nm radiation). 3 Appeal2014-001866 Application 13/064,600 Weber teaches filtering by reflection. The Examiner appears to equate Weber's filtering by reflection with the scattering at the defined angles of the claim. In so doing, the Examiner interprets scattering to mean "to distribute or spread," but provides no support for this definition. Ans. 6. In any case, such distribution or spreading is not shown to be the same as reflection, nor does it provide evidence that Weber's transmission and reflection result in scattering the greater than 800 nm light in the less than 20 degrees to a major surface and the less than 800 nm light in the more than 20 degrees to that major surface as required by the claims. The Examiner also finds "Weber teaches various shapes (i.e., surface textures or features) of the color selective film can be used to aim or spread out light across desired portions of the room." Ans. 6, citing Weber i-f 523. But the cited paragraph does not support a finding that Weber is teaching scattering at the angles of the claims. First, paragraph 523 is referring to shaping the reflective surface to aim (focus) or spread filtered light desired by the plants to the desired portions of the room. The Examiner has not established that spreading out the reflected light, which would contain the light of less than 800 nm desired by the plants, would scatter the light at the claimed angles to the major surface of the substrate. In fact, in this embodiment of Weber, the heat-generating wavelengths of more than 800 nm would be transmitted through the film and would not be scattered to angles less than 20 degrees relative to a major surface of the substrate. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection. 4 Appeal2014-001866 Application 13/064,600 DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation