Ex Parte Kreizinger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2016

14738851 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
141738,851 06/13/2015
109839 7590
Kenneth R Kreizinger
2724 NE 35th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
10/13/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth Robert Kreizinger
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.
8270
EXAMINER
KATCHEVES, BASILS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH ROBERT KREIZINGER
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, AMANDAF. WIEKER, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing of the new ground of rejection entered in
the decision mailed September 1, 2016 ("Decision"), pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b ). The request for rehearing ("Req. Reh' g") is denied.
In the Decision, the Board reversed the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 103. Dec. 3-7. Pursuant to the
Board's authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), the Board also entered a new
ground of rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by
Duncan (US 2008/0313985 Al, pub. Dec. 25, 2008). Id. at 7-10. In the
Request for Rehearing, Appellant argues that the Board erred in rejecting
claim 1 because (1) Duncan's nails, screws, and clips are not "rotational
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
resistance members"; (2) Duncan fails to disclose the claimed load
capacities; and (3) the Board's construction of "fixed boundary condition" is
improper. Req. Reh'g 2-12. We address each argument in tum.
Argument 1
The Decision finds that Duncan's nails, screws, or clips are rotational
resistance members attached to the frame members. Dec. 9-10. Appellant
argues that Duncan does not disclose explicitly that the nails, screws, or
clips "resist frame member rotation" and, while possible, such functionality
is not inherent. Req. Reh'g 2-5. Appellant argues that the "only basis in
fact that the Board has provided is that Duncan's disclosed [fasteners] are
attached to frame members," but this is insufficient to show an inherent
rotational resistance. Id. at 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. Claim 1 requires "one
or more rotational resistance members attached to said frame members."
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). As noted in the Decision, Appellant's
Specification explains that rotational resistance members include "any
element that can be attached to the frame members and resist the degree of
rotation for a particular load for a particular application." Spec. i-f 166; Dec.
10. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim
requires one or more elements that resist some degree of rotation. Dec. 10.
As discussed in the Decision, Duncan's nails, screws, or clips are attached to
the frame members as claimed, in order to secure the frame members to the
panel. See Dec. 9-10; Duncan i-fi-128, 61. Therefore, Duncan's fasteners
necessarily resist at least some degree of rotation by virtue of their
attachment of the frame members to the panel. See Dec. 9-10.
2
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's additional argument that
Duncan's fasteners "must provide sufficient rotational resistance to facilitate
the stated 25% increased load." Req. Reh'g 3--4. Claim 1 explicitly
provides that "said panel is stiffened by said dropped section and said fixed
boundary condition for an increased load capacity at least 25% greater."
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). In other words, the claim itself dictates what
"facilitate[s] the stated 25% increased load," and it is not the claimed
rotational resistance members. Only the claimed dropped section and fixed
boundary condition are required to facilitate the increased load capacity. Id.
Appellant's citation to Specification paragraphs 165 and 167 does not
persuade us that we should read into the claims a requirement that the
rotational resistance members also facilitate the claimed increase in load
capacity. Req. Reh' g 3--4; Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important not to import into a
claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.").
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that Duncan's
fasteners are inserted into the top of the frame members, not the side or
bottom as Appellant discloses. Req. Reh'g 5. Claim 1 does not specify the
location to which the claimed rotational resistance members are attached.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). It is well established that limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self,
671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Similarly, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant's argument that inserting fasteners into the top of the frame
3
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
members makes "any rotational resistance value ... dependent upon several
factors such as the type and thickness of sheathing material, the type and
size of nails, [etc.]." Req. Reh'g 5. Claim 1 does not recite any "value" of
required rotational resistance but rather, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation discussed above, requires only resistance to some degree of
rotation. Appellant's argument does not persuade us that no degree of
rotational resistance is provided by Duncan's attachment of the frame
members to the panel with the subject fasteners.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that the presence of
adhesive foam on Duncan's frame members casts doubt on whether
rotational resistance is provided because the adhesive foam creates a "stiffer
panel/frame member connection which may enable the panel to carry a
greater load before the frame members begins to rotate." Req. Reh'g 5.
Appellant's argument fails to explain how the presence of adhesive foam
precludes any degree of rotational resistance imparted by Duncan's
fasteners. Further, Appellant's statement that this arrangement allows "the
panel to carry a greater load before the frame members begin[] to rotate,"
suggests that rotational resistance indeed is provided before that moment.
Id. To the extent Appellant's argument suggests that the adhesive bond
provides rotational resistance, to the exclusion of any rotational resistance
being provided by the fasteners, this argument is also unsupported by
persuasive reasoning or evidence showing that the presence of adhesive
foam precludes any degree of rotational resistance imparted by Duncan's
fasteners. Further, even if the adhesive also provides rotational resistance,
once the adhesive bond fails and the frame member begins to rotate, the
4
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
fasteners would provide at least some amount of additional rotational
resistance.
Finally, the additional evidence cited by Appellant and attached to the
Request (see Req. Reh' g 6-7) is not persuasive because, as discussed above,
claim 1 does not require the rotational resistance members facilitate an
increased load capacity. As such, this evidence is not commensurate with
the claim scope. See, e.g., id. at 6 (discussing the study entitled Bonding
Strength of Stressed Skin Components with Screws and Adhesive and
arguing that it shows that load capacity increased by less than 1 % when
panels were screwed to frame members), id. at Deel. 1 (stating that load
capacity did not increase when nails and screws were used).
Argument 2
The Decision finds:
Duncan discloses that the panel is stiffened by said
dropped section (i.e., by Duncan's adhesive foam fillets) and said
fixed boundary condition (i.e., which is induced by the adhesive
bond imparted by Duncan's adhesive foam fillets) for an
increased load capacity at least 25% greater than said continuous
conditioned load capacity over at least one said span. Duncan
i-fi-1 61, 66-67. Specifically, Duncan discloses that when foam
fillets measuring 3" high by 5"-6" wide are applied to the frame
members and panel, the resulting structure provides an increase
in wind uplift load capacity of nearly 100%. See id. i1 66 (Table)
(showing an increase in the load capacity from 7 8 [psfJ, for a no
foam specimen, to 153 [psfJ, for a filleted foam specimen, which
represents an increase of 96.1 %); see also Appeal Br. 14
(admitting that "some of Duncan's combinations had a 25% or
greater increased load capacity, [while] some other combinations
did not").
5
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
Dec. 10. Appellant argues that Duncan does not disclose the claimed load
capacities because the capacities recited in claim 1 pertain to deflection,
whereas Duncan's load capacities pertain to wind uplift resistance. Req.
Reh'g 7-8. Specifically, "Appellant's deflection load capacity relates to a
panel's ability to resist bending whereas Duncan's uplift load capacity
relates to a panel's ability to remain attached to a structure and is thereby
clearly a different kind of load capacity." Id. at 8-9.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. Appellant's
Specification defines "load capacity" as "a panel's maximum load it can
carry, or force it can withstand, over a given span before the panel deflects
more than a given amount." Spec. i-f 26. Therefore, although we agree with
Appellant that the load capacities recited in claim 1 relate to an ability to
withstand deflection, we do not agree that Duncan's load capacities do not
relate to an ability to withstand deflection.
Specifically, Duncan describes the load to which its panels are
subjected, and the load resisted by the panels prior to failure, as "wind forces
tending to lift the roof or outer side wall of the building." Duncan i-f 3.
Duncan's invention "stiffens the roof and side walls to distribute wind loads
to the roof and side wall framing." Id. i-f 9. Indeed, Duncan specifies that
when foam fillets measuring 3" high by 5"-6" wide are applied to the frame
members and panel, the resulting structure provides an increase in wind
uplift load capacity of nearly 100%. See id. i-fi-129, 66 (Table) (showing an
increase in load capacity from 78 psf, for a no foam specimen, to 153 psf,
for a filleted foam specimen, which represents an increase of96.1 %); Dec.
10. In other words, Duncan's panels possess a load capacity that withstands
6
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
applied wind uplift loads up until they fail, where failure occurs at a mean
value of 153 psf. Duncan i-f 66 (Table). Therefore, these panels necessarily
withstand some deflection and resist some amount of bending caused by the
applied "wind forces tending to lift the roof or outer side wall of the
building," by "distribut[ing] wind loads" prior to failure. Id. i-fi-13, 9.
That Duncan's panels withstand some amount of deflection prior to
failure is confirmed by Duncan's explanation of its load capacity test
procedure, which is based upon a "slightly modified" version of ASTM
E330-02 (attached hereto). Id. i-f 60. The cited ASTM standard defines test
procedures for measuring the structural performance of windows, doors,
skylights, and curtain walls, and incorporates the structure's ability to
withstand deflection. See, e.g., ASTM E330-02 § 1.3, § 1.4.2, § 4.1 (test
method including steps of "observing, measuring, and recording the
deflection ... of the specimen"), § 6.2.4.3, § 11.3, § 12.1.7 (reporting "the
pertinent deflections at these pressure differences"); see also id. at Title
("This standard is issued under the fixed designation E330; the number
immediately following the designation indicates the year of original
adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in
parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (£)
indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. ")
(emphasis added).
Appellant's discussion of the test procedure disclosed in the
Specification (see Req. Reh'g 9 (citing Spec. i-f 26)) is unpersuasive because
the specific test procedure discussed therein is neither required by claim 1
nor required by the broadest reasonable construction of the term "load
7
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
capacity." The test procedures discussed in the Specification, for example,
testing for deflection of less than 16h40", are merely exemplary. See Spec.
i-f 26 ("For example, if span length 'L' is 16 inches, the panel cannot deflect
more than 16/240 or .067 inch when the given 40 psf load is applied.")
(emphasis added).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that "test data for
[the increased load capacity and continuous conditioned load capacity] must
be derived from load testing a single span. However, Duncan's test
procedure and results are derived from a wind uplift resistance over four
spans, which precludes the test data from being the same elements as
Appellant's." Req. Reh'g 10 (citations omitted). Appellant's argument is
contradicted by the express language of claim 1, which requires "an
increased load capacity at least 25% greater than said continuous
conditioned load capacity over at least one said span." Appeal Br. 20
(Claims App.) (emphasis added). Therefore, Appellant's argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Argument 3
Appellant objects to the Board's construction of "fixed boundary
condition" as "a condition in which the ends of a beam (i.e., the ends of a
'frame member,' as claimed) are fixed, rather than being merely supported."
Dec. 4; Req. Reh'g 10. Appellant argues that the Board erred in finding that
"Appellant's definition of a fixed boundary condition cannot include 'having
some increase in load capacity up to 400%."' Req. Reh'g 11.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument because it misstates the
Board's Decision. The Board did not find that an increase in load capacity
8
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
of 400% cannot be present; the Board merely indicated that such an increase
of 400% is neither required by the plain language of claim 1 nor by the
broadest reasonable construction of "fixed boundary condition." While such
an increase may well be present, it is not required. Dec. 4; Spec. i-fi-17, 35.
Furthermore, the Board's construction of "fixed boundary condition" derives
directly from paragraphs 7 and 37 of the Specification, which state that a
"fixed boundary condition exists when the ends of a beam over a single span
are fixed as opposed to being simply supported" (Spec. i17), and that a panel
is "fixed" when "a sufficient bond exists between the panel and frame
members ... to prevent the panel from rotating" (id. i137).
Appellant also argues that the Board's construction is in error because
"the claimed fixed boundary condition refers to the panel having a fixed
boundary condition, not the frame members." Req. Reh'g 12. Claim 1
requires "said panel fixed to said frame members with a sufficient adhesive
bond to induce a fixed boundary condition on said panel." As the Board's
construction makes clear, such a condition is "induce[ d]" as claimed when
"the ends of a beam (i.e., the ends of a 'frame member,' as claimed) are
fixed, rather than being merely supported." Dec. 4. When the ends of the
frame members are so fixed, a fixed boundary condition is induced on the
panel. Appellant has not demonstrated error in the Board's construction.
Finally, Appellant asks the Board to issue an opinion with respect to
certain dependent claims. Req. Reh'g 12. As noted in the Decision, the
Board declines to exercise its discretion to reject each pending claim and
leaves the patentability determination of these claims to the Examiner, in the
event of further prosecution. Dec. 11; MPEP § 1213.02 ("[T]he Board may,
9
Appeal2016-005507
Application 14/738,851
in its decision, make a new rejection of one or more of any of the claims ...
. The Board's primary role is to review the adverse decision as presented by
the Examiner, and not to conduct its own separate examination of the
claims.").
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
REHEARING DENIED
10
Notice of References Cited
*
Document Number Date
Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY
A US-
B US-
c US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
*
Document Number Date
Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY
N
0
p
Q
R
s
T
Application/Control No.
14/738,851
Examiner
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
Name
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
Country
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
Name
Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Appeal No.
2016-005507
Art Unit
I Page 1 of 1 13600
Classification
Classification
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
u ASTM International E330-02, "Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Exterior Windows, Doors, Skylights and
Curtain Walls by Uniform Static Air Pressure."
v
w
x
*A copy of this reference 1s not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
NCYTH. .. --::E~ Th~s stand.;~n:1 has ;£~~th~~r b;£:en sup;£H'S;£:di2!d .;~nd r~~p~ac~~d bv a n~~\.'t~ Vi2!rsk;n c.H· ~v~thdr::~\rVTL
t";t1ntact l~STN1 ~nteniationa~ 0:V\~i~V,astrn.o~·~$} ft1r th~:: ~atE~st ~n1-sorrnat~on.
iiJlT~, Designation: E330- 02 diaWf
~utL_
INTl:RNA.TIOf\IAi.
Standard Test Method for
Structural Performance of Exterior Windows, Doors,
Skylights and Curtain Walls by Uniform Static Air Pressure
Difference 1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E330; the number immediately following the de:signation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A m.unber in parentheses indicates the y.;:·.ar of last reapproval. A
super.scdpt ep::;ilcm (e) indicate::; an editoda] change sfrice the fast revision or reapproval.
This standard has been at-proved for use by agenci(?s of the Department of D(?fo;s(?.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method describes the determination of the
structural performance of exterior windows, doors, skylights,
and curtain walls under uniform static air pressure differences,
using a test chamber. This test method is applicable to curtain
wall assemblies including, but not limited to, meta.I, glass,
masonry, and stone components.
l.2 'Ibis test method is intended only for evaluating the
structural performance associated with the specified test speci-
men and not the structural performance of adjacent constrnc-
tion.
1.3 The proper use of this test rnethod requires a knowledge
of the principles of pressure and deflection measurement.
1.4 This test method describes the apparatus and the proce-
dure to be used for applying uniformly distributed test loads to
a specimen.
1.4.1 Procedure A (see 1 L2J shall be used when a load-
defiection curve is not required.
1.4.2 Procedure B (see U.3) shall be used when a load-
defiection curve is required.
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the
standard. The values given in parentheses are for information
only.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address alt of the
safety concerns, i:l any, associated with its use. ft is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro·-
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica·-
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. Fm· specific hazard
statements, see Section 7.
l.7 The text of this standard references notes and footnotes
which provide explanatory materials. These notes and foot-
notes (excluding those in tables and figures) shall not be
considered as requirements of the standard.
1 This te::;t method js under the jud::;diction of ASTlvl Conunittee E06 on
Performance of Buildings and is the direct re:sponsibility of Subcomrn_inee E06,51
on Performance of v~r1ndows, Doors, Skylights and Curt~m -V\ralls.
Cu_nent edition approved Nov. 10, 2002. Published Nove1nber 2002. OrjgfoaHy
approved in 1967. Last previous edition approved in 1997 as E330 -- 97" 1• DOI:
!O. 1520/E0330··02.
2. Referenced Documenis 2
2.1 AS'T'M Standards:3
E63 l Terminology of Building Constructions
E997 Test ~fothod for Structural Performance of Cllass in
Exterior 'Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors Under the
Influence of Uniform Static Loads by Destructive Methods
E998 Test Method for Structural Performance of Glass in
Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors Under the Influence of
Uniform Static: Loads by Nondestructive Method
E 1233 Test Method for Structural Performance of Exterior
Windows, Doors, Skylights, and Curtain Walls by Cyclic
Air Pressure Differential
E 1300 Practice for Determining Load Resistance of Glass
in Buildings
.E1386 Test Method for Performance of Exterior Windows,
Curtain Walls, Doors, and Impact Protective Systems
linpacted by Missile(s) and Exposed to Cyclic Pressure
Differentials
.E19% Specification for Performance of Exterior Windows,
Curtain Walls, Doors, and Impact Protective Systems
Impacted by Windborne Debris in Hurricanes
2.2 ASCE Standard:
ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures4
3. Terminology
3. l Definitions-Definitions are in accordance with Tenni-
nology E63 l, unless otherwise indicated.
3.2 Definitions lif Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2J design wind load-the unifonn static air pressure
differences, imvard and out\vard, for \Vhich the specimen
2 Additionaj infonnatjon on curtafo \vaH asse.rnblie::; can be obtafried from the
A.tneric;;rn _Architectural -~v1anufacturers' As:sociation, 1827 \Valden Office Square.
Smte 550, Sch;;umburg, IL 60173.
3 For referenced AS'T}i1 standards, visit the AST'_~[ vvehsite, wwvv.astrn.org, or
contact ASTlvI Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Boole of AS17VI
Standards volm:ne infon11ation, refer to the standJ.rd~s Dc-cm:nent Surnmary page on
the ASTM website.
4 Available from American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCEJ. 1801 Alexander
BeH Dr., Reston, VA 20191, http:/hvww.asce.org.
Copyright iG)A::JTM lnternaticnal, 100 Elarr Harbor Drive, PO E3ox C7DO, \II/est Conshohocken, P.4 1942g-2959, t..Jn;ted States
0) E330-02
\vould be designed under service load conditions using con-
ventional wind engineering specifications and concepts, ex-
pressed in pascals (or pounds-force per square foot). This
pressure is determined by either analytical or \Vincl-tunnel
procedmes (such as are specified in .\SCE 7).
3.2..2. permanent d<'.formation, n-----the displacement or
change in dimension of the specimen after the applied load has
been removed and the specimen has relaxed fot· tbe specified
period of time.
3.2.3 proof load-----a test load multiplied by a factor of safety.
3.2.4 stick system, n-----a curtain wall assernbly composed of
individually framed continuous members, vertical mullions,
and horizontal rails that are installed in a sequential, piece-by-
piec:e process. The completed system is assembled entirely in
the field.
3.2.5 structural distress-a change in condition of the
specimen indicative of deterioration or incipient failure, such
as cracking, local yielding, fastener loosening, or loss of
adhesive bond.
3.2.6 test load-the specified difference in static air pressure
(positive or negative) for \Vhich the specimen is to be tested,
expressed in pascals (or pounds-force per square foot).
3.2.7 test specimen, n-the entire assembled unit submitted
for test (as described in Section 8).
3.2.8 unit/pane! system, n-a curtain \Vall assembly com-
posed of pre--assembkd groups of individual framing members.
Tbe completed system is designed to be modular, trnnsport-
able, and installed as a fo1isbed assembly.
4. Summary of Test :Method
4.1 This test method consists of sealing the test specimen
into or against one face of a test chamber, supplying air to or
exhausting air from the chamber according to a specific: test
loading program, at the rate required to maintain the test
pressure difference across the specimen, and observing, mea-
suring, and recording the deflection, deformations, and nature
of any distress or failures of the specimen.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 This test method is a standard procedure for determining
struct1tral performance under uniform static air pressme differ-
ence. This typically is intended to represent the effects of a
\Vind load on exterior building surface elements. The actual
loading on building surfaces is quite complex, varying with
wind direction, time, height above ground, building shape,
tetTain, srnTounding structures, and other factors. The t·esis--
tanc:e of many windows, curtain walls, and door assemblies to
wind loading is also complex and depends on tbe complete
history of load, magnitude, duration, and t·epetition. Tbese
factors are discussed in A5CE 7 and in the literature 0·,8).5
5.2 Design wind velocities are selected for particular geo-
graphic locations and probabilities of occtmence based on data
from wind velocity maps such as are provided in ASCE 7.
These wind velocities arc translated into uniform static air
pressure differences and durations acting in\.vard and outward.
5 The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references appended to
thL> test tnetbod.
2
Complexities of wind pressures, as related to building design,
wind intensity versus duration, frequency of occurrence, and
other factors must be considered. Superimposed on sustained
\.Vinds arc gusting winds which, for short pe1iods of time from
a fraction of a second to a Ie\.V seconds, are capable of moving
at considerably higher velocities than the sustained \.Vinds. The
analytical procedures in ASCE 7, wind tunnel studies, com-
puter simulations, and model analyses are helpful in determin-
ing the appropriate design wind loads on exterior surface
elements of buildings. Generally, wind load durations obtained
from ASCE 7 are 2 to 10 s and are dependent upon the specific
time reference employed in determining tbe pressure coeffl-·
dents.
5.3 Some materials have strength or deflection charncteris-·
tics that are time dependent Therefore, the duration of the
applied test load may have a significant impact on the
performance of materials used in the test specimen. The most
common examples of materials with time-dependent response
characteristics that arc used are glass, plastics, and composites
that employ plastics. For this reason, the strength of an
assembly is tested for the actual time duration to which it
would be exposed to a sustained or a gust load, or both, as
discussed above. Generally, U.S. practice for wind load testing
has been to require a minimum test period of 10 s for test loads
equal to the design \.Vind load and proof loads equal to 1.5
times the design wind load. Thus a safety factor is incorporated
in the testing. With test loads for wind higher than those
determined by A5CE 7 or of longer time duration than l 0 s, the
designer must consider what safety factors are appropriate. For
test loads that represent design loads other than wind, such as
sno\.v load, consideration shall be given to establish an appro-
priate test period for both design and proof load testing.
SA This standard is not intended to account for the effect of
windborne debris or cyclic loads. Consideration of cyclic air
pressure differentials is addressed in Test Method El233.
Consideration of windborne debris in combination with cyclic
ai_r pressure differentia.1 rqxesenting extreme wind events is
adclt'essed in Test Method El886 and Specification
5.5 This test method is not intended for use in evaluating the
structural adequacy of glass for a particular application. \Y1ten
the structural performance of glass is to be evaluated, the
procedme described in Test Method E997 or E996 sball be
used.
NoTE J-In applying the results of tests by tlus test method, note that
the performance of a wall or its componems, or both, may be a function
of fabrication, installation, and adjustment. 111e specimen may or may not
truly represent every aspect of the actual strnctme. In service, the
performance will also depend on the rigidity of supporting constmction,
temperature, and on the resistance of components to detenorntion by
various other causes, including vibration, thermal expansion and contrnc--
tion, etc.
6. Apparatus
6.1 The description of the apparatus is general in nature; any
equipment capable of performing the test procedure ·within the
allowable tolerances is permitted.
6.2 J'vfajor Components (sec Fig. l):
0) E330-02
Test
Specimen
FIG. 1 General Arrangement of Testing Apparatus
6.2. l Test Chamber, or a box with an opening, a removable
mounting panel, or one open side in which or against which the
specimen is installed. Provide a static pressure tap to measure
the pressure difference across the test specimen. Locate the tap
so that the reading is unaffected by the velocity of air supplied
to or from the chamber or by any other air movements. The air
supply opening into the chamber shall be arranged so that the
air does not impinge directly on the test specimen 'vVith any
significant velocity. A means shall be provided to facilitate test
specimen adjustments and observations. The test chamber or
the specimen mounting frame, or both, must not deflect under
the test load in such a manner that the performance of the
specimen will be affected.
6.2,2 Air System, a controllable blower, a compressed-air
supply. an exhaust system, or reversible controllable blo'vver
designed to provide the t·equired maximum air-pressure differ·-
ence across the specimen. Tbe system shall provide an essen ..
tially constant ait·-pressure difference for the required test
period.
N-oTE 2-It is convenient to use a reversible blower or a separate
pressure and exhaust system to provide the required air-·pressure differ-
ence so that the test specimen can be tested for the effect of wind blowing
against the wall (posit1ve pressure) or for the effect of suction on the lee
side of the building (negative pressure) without removing. reversing, and
remstnlling the test specimen. If an adequate air supply is available, a
completely airtight seal need not be provided around the perimeter of the
test specimen and the mounting panel, although it is preferable. However.
substantial air leakage wtll require an mr supply of much greater capacity
to maintain the required pressure differences.
6.2,3 Pressure-Measuring Apparatus, to measure the test
pressure difference within a tolerance of :~:2 % or :!:2.5 Pa
(:!::0.01 in. of 'vvater column), whichever is greater,
6.2.4 D(flection .. f\,frasuring System, to measure deflections
within a tolerance of ::'::0.25 mm (:!:0.01 in.).
6.2.4.l For Procedure A, any locations at which deflections
are to be measmed shall be stated by the specifier.
6.2.4.2 For Procedure B. maximum and end deflections of at
least one of each type of principal member not directly and
continuously supported by surrounding construction shall be
rneasured. Additional locations for deflection measurements, if
required, shall be stated by the specifier.
3
6.2.4.3 When deflections are to be measured, the deflection
gages shall be installed so that the deflections of the compo-
nents can be measured without being influenced by possible
movements of, or movements within, the specimen or member
suppotts.
6.2.4.4 For proof load tests, pennanent deformation can be
determined by the use of a straightedge-type gage applied to
tbe members aftet· preloading and again after the test load has
been rento-ved.
7. Hazards
7.1 1~J.ke proper precautions to protect the observers in the
event of any failure. Considerable energy and hazard are
involved at the pressures used in this test method.
(vVarning-At the pressure used in this test method. consid-
erable hazards are involved. Do not permit personnel in
negative pressure chambers during tests.)
8. Test Specimens
8,1 Curtain wall test specimens shall be of sufficient size
and configuration to determine the perfomiance of all typical
patts of tbe system and to provide full loading on each typical
vettic:al and horizontal framing member, including building
con1er details and end joints, if applicable. For multistory
systems, the specimen height shall not be less than two full
building stories plus the height necessary to include at least one
full horizontal joint accommodating vertical expansion. If
water testing is to be performed on the test specimens, at least
one full horizontal joint accommodating vertical expansion
shall be included and located in the bottom third of the
specimen. The specimen shall include all typical expansion
joints, connections, anchorages, and supporting elements in-
cluding those at the top. bottom, and both sides of the
specimen. Where the largest system or building wall is smaller
than that required herein, the largest system or full size
building wall shall be tested. (See Figs. 2 ;md 3 for optional
specimen configurations.)
8.l.1 All parts of the curtain \Vall test specimen shall be full
size, using the same materials, details and methods of construc-
tion, and anchorage as used on the actual building.
8.l.2 Conditions of strnctural support shall simulate, as
accurately as possible, the structural conditions of the actual
building. Separate tests of anchorage systems using the actual
anchm· substrates shall be conducted when specified.
8.2 A window, door, or other wall component test specimen
shall consist of the entire assembled unit, including frame and
anchorage as supplied by the manufacturer for installation in
tbe building, or as set forth in a referenced specification, if
applicable.
8.2. l If only one specimen is to be tested, the selection shall
be determined by the specifying authority.
Norn 3-Since peJfonrnrnce is Ekely to be a function of size and
gcornetry~ select specirnens covering the range of sizes to be used in a
building. In general, it is recommended that the largest size or most
heavily OJ criticaJly loaded of a particular design. type, constmction. or
rnnfigmation be tested. [t is also recommended that the largest lite or
panel in a system OJ bmlding be used at each side of a horizontal or
vertical framing member. The glass rn a spectrnen should be of the same
thickness and heat-treatment condition as to be used in the system or
0) E330-02
Two modules minirrum;
add one module for each
addltlonal rrullion shape
See Note 1
Typical
Horizontal
Members
Flexible seal between
test specimen and
chamber
See Note 3
f; ~/.o/~4-
, '
'
See Note 3
Norn l·----Width of typical specimen if no comers are included in
system or project.
NoTE 2-lndude vertical expansion joint corners and end (iamb)
conditions in test specimen if such items are part of system or project wall.
If water testing is to be performed. place one expansmnjoint in lower third
of specimen.
NmE 3----See 8.L2 for strnctural rnppmt requirements at specimen
perimeter.
FIG. 2 Typical Stick-System Test Specimen Concept
building. Glass stronger than that to be used in a system or building should
not be used in a test specin1en. Practice -e,-~ 300 shouJd be used to verify
that the sdected glass will meet the specified loads. Fully sealed roof
coping details do not have to be included in a specimen unless specified.
9. Calibration
9.1 AH pressure and deflection measuring devices, except
manometers and mechanical deflection measuring devices,
shall be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's
specification, in accordance with the tolerance provided in
Section 6. but in any event, not more than six months prior to
testing. Calibration of manometers and mechanical deflection
measuring devices are normally not required, provided the
instruments are used at a temperature near their design tem-
perature.
10. Required Information
lO.l Jn specifying this test method, the following informa·-
tion shall be supplied by tbe specifying authority:
lO.l.l Procedure A:
10. L Ll The positive and negative test and proof loads,
10.Ll.2 The duration of test and proof loads, and
10. L 1.3 The number and location of deflection measure-
rnents required, if any.
4
10.L2 Procedure B:
10.L2J The number of incremental loads and the positive
and negative test loads at these increments at which deflection
measurements are required,
l 0.1.2.2 The durntion of incremental and maximum test
loads, and
l 0.1.2.3 The number and location of t·equired deflection
measurements.
1L Procedure
l l.l Preparation-----Remove from the test specimen any
sealing or construction material that is not to be used when the
assembly is installed in or on a building. Fit tbe specimen into
or against the chamber opening. The outdoor side of the
specimen shall face the higher pressure side for positive loads;
the indoor side shall face the higher pressure side for negative
loads. Support and secure the specimen by the same number
and type of anchors used in installing the unit in a building, or
if this is impractical, by the same number of other comparable
fasteners, located in the same way as in the intended installa-
tions.
11.1.1 If air flow through the test specimen is such that the
specified pressure cannot be maintained (for example, ifovv in
excess of blower equipment capacity), then the cracks and
joints through which air leakage is occuuing shall be sealed
using tape or other means that will effectively stop the leakage
of air. The means to stop air leakage shall not restrict any
relative movement between specimen components. As an
alternative, cover the entire specimen and mounting panel with
a single thickness of polyethylene film no thicker than 0.05 mm
(0.002 in.). The tecbnique of application is important to ensme
that the maximum load is transferred to the specimen and that
the membrane does not prevent movement or failure of the
specimen. Apply the film loosely with extra folds of material at
eacb cornet· and at all offsets and recesses. \Vben the load is
applied, tbere sha1l be no fillet caused by tightness of plastic
mm.
11.2 Procedure A-----Use the following procedure vvhen a
load-deflection curve is not required:
11.2. l Check the specimen for proper adjustment. For
operable specimens, open, close, and lock each ventilator, sash,
or door five times after adjustments and prior to testing.
11.2.2 lnstall any required deflection-measuring devices at
their specified locations.
11.2.3 Apply a pre-load of one half of the test load and hold
for 10 s. Release the pressure difference across the specimen
and, after a recovery period to allow stabilization of the test
specimen, zero-out deilection-measuring devices. The recovery
period for stabilization shall not be less than l min nor more
than 5 min at zero load.
11.2.4 Unless otherwise specified, apply and maintain the
test load for not less than 10 s. Record deflection readings.
l l .2.5 Reduce tbe pressure diffet·ence to zero and. after a
recovery period to allow stabilization of the test specimen,
record permanent deformation. The recovery period for stabi-
lization shall not be less than l min nor more than S min at zero
load.
11.2.6 Repeat steps l l .L3 through l I .2.5 for the test load in
the opposite loading direction.
0) E330-02
~~-~~
See Note 1
Pl _fill
I S N ee ote
L Typical
Horizontal
Members -
'
l_ See Note 3
Flexible seal between
test specimen and
chamber
Elevation
-
I
, '
'
\,~~-
See Note 3
Expansion joint
SeeNote2] -,
' t+ ' ' ' ,
~$--
anchorage as
specttied
NmE ]·----Width of typical specimen if no corners are included in system or project.
NoTE 2-lndude vertical expansion joint corners and end (iamb) conditions in test specimen if such ttems are part of system or project wall. lf water
testing is to be performed, place one expansion joint in lower third of specimen.
N-oTE 3-See 8, J.2 for stn1ctural support requiren1ents at spedrnen perjrneter.
FIG. 3 Typical Unit/Panel System Test Specimen Concept
1 l.2.7 In the opposite direction of the previous test load,
apply a pre-load of one half of the proof load and hold for 10
s. Release the pressure difference across the specimen and,
after a recovery period to allow stabilization of the test
specimen, zero-out deflection-measming devices. The recovery
period for stabilization shall not be less than 1 min nor more
than S min at zero load.
11.2.8 Unless otherwise specified, apply and maintain the
proof load for not less than 10 s.
11.2.9 Reduce the pressure difference to zero and, after a
recovery period to allovv stabilization of the test specimen,
record permanent deformation. The recovery period for stabi-
lization shall not be less than 1 min, nor more than S min at
zero load.
11.2.10 Repeat steps l l.2.7 through l l.2. 9 for the proof
load in the opposite loading direction.
l l.2. l l If glass breakage occms at any test load, carefully
examine the test specimen to determine the cause of the
breakage. If the breakage was caused by deformation or failure
of the supporting frame of the glass, by loosening or failure of
any fastenet·s, or by damage to the glass caused by interaction
between the glass and its supporting elements, record the
findings and discontinue the test. If the breakage was not
caused by any of the above named structural problems, replace
the glass using the original fasteners and continue the test at the
5
load where glass breakage occurred. lf new stmctural elements
or fasteners are used instead of the miginal ones, repeat the
entire test.
NorE 4-The probabtlity of glass breakage ts directly related to the
duration of !he load on the glass. To reduce the probability of glass
brea,.1'.:age dming the testing, the load applicat1on t1rne (time to apply,
maintain, and release load) should be minimized.
1 L3 Procedure B-Use the following procedure when the
determination of a load-deflection curve is required:
1 l.3.1 Follow ll .2J and l l.2.2.
11.3.2 Apply a load of one half of the specified maximum
test load and hold for 10 sunless otherwise specified. Release
the pressme diffet·ence across the specimen and, after a
t·ecovery period to allow stabilization of tbe test specimen,
zero-·out cleftectiorHneasuring devices. Tbe t·ecovery period for
stabilization shall not be less than l min nor more than S min
at zero load.
11.3.3 Apply the load in the number of increments specified
up to the specified maximum test load. The specifier shall
determine the number of increments to be used in this test, not
to be less than four approximately equal increments to maxi-
mum test load. At each increment, unless otherwise specified,
apply and maintain the full test load for l 0 s, unless othenvise
specified, and record pertinent deflection readings.
0) E330-02
11.3.4 Release the pressure difference and, after a recovery
period to allow stabilization of the test specimen, record
permanent defonnationo The recovery period for stabilization
shall not be less than 1 min nor more than 5 min at zero load.
l l.3.5 \Y1ten the behavior of the specimen under load
indicates that sudden failure may occur and damage the
measuring devices, the deflection measuring devices may be
removed and the load continuously increased until the maxi--
mum test load or the maximum load that can be sustained is
reached. At this point, release the load and after a t·ecovery
period to allo\v stabilization of the test specimen, record
permanent deformation. The recovery period for stabilization
shall not be less than 1 min nor more than 5 min at zero load.
11.3.6 ff glass breakage occurs, follovv the procedure de-
scribed in U .2.11.
12. Report
12.1 Report the follovv'ing information:
12.1.1 Date of the test and the report.
12.1.2 Identification of the specimen (manufacturer, source
of supply, dirnensions, model types, material, specimen selec-
tion procedure, and other pertinent infonnation).
12.1.3 Detailed drawings of the specimen, showing dimen-
sioned section profiles, sash or door dimensions and affange-
ment, framing location, panel arrangement, installation and
spacing of anchorage, vveatherstripping, locking affangement
hardvvare, sealants, glazing details, test specimen sealing meth-
ods, and any other pertinent construction details. Any deviation
from the dravvings or any modifications made to the specimen
to obtain the reported values shall be noted on the drawings and
in the reporL
12.1.4 For window and door components, a description of
the type, quantity, and location(s) of the locking and operating
hardware.
12.1.5 Glass thickness and type, and method of glazing.
Include in the report a statement that, "No conclusions of any
kind regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of the glass in the
test specimen are to be drawn from tbe test."
l2. l.6 Procedure A-----A tabulation of pressme differences
exerted across the specimen, their durations during all tests,
and the deflections and permanent deformations at locations
specified for each specimen tested.
12.l. 7 Procedure B------A tabulation of the number of test load
increments, the pressure differences exerted across the speci-
6
men at these increments, their durations, the pertinent deflec-
tions at these pressure differences, and permanent deformations
at locations specified for each specimen tested.
12.L8 The duration of maximum test loads, including
incremental loads for Procedure B.
12. l .9 A record of visual observations of performance.
12. l. l 0 \Vhen the tests are made to check conformity of the
specimen to a particular specification, an identification or
description of that specification.
12. l. l l A statement tbat the tests were conducted in accor--
dance vv'ith this test method, or a foll description of any
deviations from this test metbod.
12.1.12 A statement as to whether or not tape or film, or
both, \Vere used to seal against air leakage, and whether in the
judgment of the test engineer, the tape or film influenced the
results of the test.
12.1.13 The name of the author of the report.
12.1.14- The names and addresses of both the testing agency
that conducted the tests and the requester of the tests.
12.1.15 Ambient conditions, including temperatme, before
and during tests.
12.1.16 Signatures of persons responsible fot· supervision of
tbe tests and a list of official observers.
12.1.17 Other data, useful to the understanding of the test
report, as determined by the laboratory or specifier, shall either
be included within the report or appended to the report.
12.2 If several essentially identical specimens of a compo-
nent are tested, results for all specimens shall be reported, each
specimen being properly identified, particularly with respect to
distinguishing features or differing adjustmentso A separate
drnvving for each specimen will not be required if all differ-
ences bet\veen them are noted on the drawings provided.
13. Precision and Bias
13.1 No statement is made either on tbe precision or bias of
tbis test method for measming stmctural petofonnance, since
tbis method merely states whethet· or not the test specimen
sustained the loads applied and otherwise conformed to the
criteria specified for success.
14. Kej'words
14.1 curtain wall; deflection; defomiation: distress; door;
load; pressure chamber; specimen; support; window
0) E330-02
REF'ERENCES
(1) }1lind Loading and V/ind-Induced .. 5lructural Re~7Jonse, Arnerjcan
Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE, New York, NY, 1987.
(2) Design H7ind loads for Buildings and Boundary Layer lVind Tunnel
Testing, AAMA CW-11-1985, American A.rchitectural J\farmfacturers
Association, Schaumburg, IL 60173.
(3) Sachs, Peter, lFind Forces in Engineering. Pergamon Press) l\1axwe1J
I-louse, Ehnsford, NY- 10523~ 1972.
(4) MacDonald, A J., Wind Loading on Buildings, Applied Sciences
Publishers~ Ltd,~ Barking, Essex, England~ 1975.
(5) Houghton, E., and Carruthers, N., Wind Forces on Buildings and
Structures, John \Viley 8L Sons, Inc., New York. NY, 1976.
(6) Sirniu, E., and Scanlan, R. H., µ?ind l~~trects on Structures? Second
Edition, John \Viley 8L Sons, NY, 1986.
(7) l\1inor? J. _E., "'\Vindbo111e l)ebris and the Building En'·'elope~~~ .Jour-
nal of Wind Engineering and Indu.strial Aerodynarrzics., Vol 53~ 1994,
pp. 207--227.
(8) Letchford, C. W .. and Norville, H. S., '"Wind Pressure Loading Cycles
for Wall Cladding During Hurricanes," .Joumal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial i1erodynamics, Vol 53, 1994, pp. 189--206.
AS'Tf1/l international takes no position respecting the validity of any patent ;fghts asserted in connection with any item rnentloned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that deterrnination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infriogernent of such dghts. are entirely their own responsibility.
This siano'ard is subject to revision at any tirne by the responsible technical committee ano' tnust be reviewed every five years and
if not revised. either reapproved or withdrawn Your cornrnents are invited either for revision of this standard or for additionai standards
and shouid be addressed to ASTJ'v1 International Headquarters, Your comments ~vill receive careful consideration at a rneeting of the
responsible technical co;n;nittee, ~vhich you may attend. !t' you feel that your cDJ11111ents have not received a fair hearing you should
make vour views kno~vn to the ASTA1 Committee on Standards, at the address sho~vn be/0111.
This standard is cop_vr!ghted b_v AST!l/f International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, VIiest Conshohocken, P.4 19428-2959,
United States. individual reprints (single or rnultipie copiesj of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTA1 at the above
address or at 610-832-·9585 (phone), 610·-832-9555 (fax), or service@ast1nor,9 (e-mail); or through the ASTfli! website
(w~vwasttno1g). Permission rights to photocopy ihe standard may also be secured frotn the ASTf1/l vvebslte (w~vwasttnorg/
COPYRiGl-iT/).
7