Ex Parte Laurent et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2019

13391466 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/391,466 03/23/2012 Stephane Laurent
22850 7590 03/04/2019
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
394855US99PCT 3676
EXAMINER
ZHANG, MICHAEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHANE LAURENT, ROBERT DRESE, and
ULRICH BILLERT
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-12, 14--20, and 22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 21, 2012; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated November 1, 2017; Appellants' Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") dated February 23, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
April 4, 2018; and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated April 25,
2018.
2 Appellants identify Saint-Gobain Glass France as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a multilayer coating for use
with glass to act on solar and/or infrared radiation. Spec. 1. Claim I-the
sole independent claim on appeal-is illustrative:
1. A laminated glazing comprising:
a first substrate comprising a thin-film multilayer
deposited directly on a surface thereof;
a polymer sheet, which is in direct contact with the thin-
film multilayer of the first substrate; and
a second substrate, which is in direct contact with the
polymer sheet,
wherein the thin-film multilayer comprises an alternation
of:
(i) at least three metallic functional layers; and
(ii) one more antireflection coating than a total number of
metallic functional layers,
wherein each antireflection coating comprises an
antireflection layer so that each metallic functional layer is
positioned between two antireflection coatings,
wherein the antireflection coatings each comprise a layer
comprising silicon nitride, optionally doped with another
element, and
wherein a thickness, ex, of each metallic functional layer
is less than a thickness of a preceding metallic functional layer
in a direction of the first substrate and satisfies:
wherein:
x is a row of the metallic functional layer, numbered
from the first substrate surface;
x-1 is a row of the preceding metallic functional layer in
the direction of the first substrate;
a satisfies an equation: 0.55 :Sa :S 0.95; and
a thickness of first metallic functional layer, e1, closest to
the first substrate surface satisfies an equation: 10 :S e1 :S 18 in
nm, and
the thin-film multilayer has a sheet resistance, R, less
than or equal to 1 ohm per square.
2
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
App. Br. (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Thiel3 as evidenced by Hartig. 4
II. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Thiel, as evidenced by Hartig, in view ofReutler. 5
III. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Thiel, as evidenced by Hartig, in view of Fleury. 6
OPINION
Rejection I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellants argue the rejected claims as a
group. We select claim 1 as representative, and decide the propriety of
Rejection 1 based on the representative claim.
Relevant to Appellants' arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that
Thiel discloses a multilayer film comprising three metallic layers, each
sandwiched between two anti-reflection coatings. Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner finds that Thiel teaches the first metallic layer having a range of
thickness values that overlaps the claimed range, the second metallic layer is
thinner than the first, and the third metallic layer is thinner than the second.
Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds that Thiel discloses silicon nitride as
3 US 2009/0011205 Al, published January 8, 2009 ("Thiel").
4 US 2007 /0081227 Al, published April 12, 2007 ("Hartig").
5 WO 2007/101963 A2, published September 13, 2007 ("Reutler").
6 US 2007 /0082219 Al, published April 12, 2007 ("Fleury").
3
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
suitable for use in connection with each anti-reflection coating. Advisory
Action, dated January 10, 2018. 7
Appellants allege three reversible errors. First, Appellants argue that
Thiel fails to teach the disclosed multilayer film having a sheet resistance
less than or equal to 1 ohm/square. App. Br. 18-19. Next, Appellants argue
that the Examiner improperly dismissed Appellants' evidence of unexpected
results. Id. at 19. Finally, Appellants argue that Thiel does not disclose that
each anti-reflection coating includes silicon nitride. Id. at 23. We address
each alleged error in tum.
Sheet resistance
The Examiner finds that Thiel teaches emissivity values of 0.05 or
less, corresponding to a resistivity of 2.96 ohm per square or less, that
overlaps the claimed sheet resistance range. Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that Thiel's disclosure of emissivity values regards
other coatings, not the solar control coating of Thiel. App. Br. 10-16. We
disagree. Thiel states that the disclosed solar control coating can block,
absorb or filter IR and UV portions of the solar spectrum. Thiel ,r 28. Thiel
also states that the disclosed solar control coating "can also be an
electroconductive low emissivity coating that ... reflects longer wavelength
solar infrared energy." Id. ,r 31. Although Thiel points to other prior art
references as examples of low emissivity coatings, the teaching that the
coating can be a low emissivity coating is directed to "[ t ]he solar control
coating 30," which refers to Thiel's disclosed multilayer film. Id.
7 Appellants added the silicon nitride recitation to claim 1 after the Examiner
issued the Final Office Action.
4
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
Appellants also argue that Hartig discloses examples of low
emissivity coatings that exhibit a sheet resistance of 1.25-3 ohms per square,
which is greater than the claimed range. Id. at 16-17. This argument is
unpersuasive of error. The Examiner points to Hartig solely as evidence of a
mathematical relationship between emissivity and sheet resistance. Final
Act. 3. The relied upon emissivity values, and their mathematically derived
resistance values, are taught by Thiel. Id.
Appellants argue that Thiel fails to recognize that sheet resistance
depends on the thickness of the metallic layers as well as the thickness
differences between neighboring metallic layers, which Appellants contend
is demonstrated in the Figure presented at page 18 of the Appeal Brief. App.
Br. 1 7-19. That figure, which is adapted from a figure appearing in the
Declaration of Patissier Amaury ("Declaration" or "Deel."), filed May 16,
2016, is illegible and, therefore, of limited probative value. 8 Moreover,
Appellants' argument that sheet resistance depends on the relative thickness
of the metallic layers does not refute the Examiner's finding that Thiel
teaches overlapping thickness values and essentially the same thickness
relationships as claimed-namely, a second metallic layer thinner than the
first and a third metallic layer thinner than the second. See Thiel ,r 8 ("The
first infrared reflective metallic layer is thicker than the second infrared
metallic layer and the second infrared metallic layer is thicker than the third
infrared reflective metallic layer."). See also Thiel Examples 1 and 4
(reporting exemplary films having first, second, and third silver films with
respective thicknesses that appear to meet or approximate all of the
mathematical expressions recited in claim 1). Thiel's failure to expressly
8 The original figure in the Declaration also is illegible. See Deel. 5.
5
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
acknowledge an effect of the disclosed metallic films on sheet resistance
does not negate Thiel' s teaching of metallic films having virtually the same
thickness relationships as claimed, and Thiel's teaching that a low emissivity
value ( corresponding to a low sheet resistance value) was desirable for low
emissivity glass. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264---65 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
( a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill to provide Thiel' s multilayer film with a sheet resistance
less than or equal to 1 ohm per square.
Unexpected results
Appellants rely on the data presented on Tables 1 and 3 of the
Specification (Spec. 14, 17) and the above identified Declaration as evidence
of unexpected results. App. Br. 20-22.
According to Appellants, the data in Tables 1 and 3 of the
Specification show that the sheet resistance is lower when the metallic films
satisfy the trend having the thickest metallic film next to the substrate and
progressively thinner metallic films moving away from the substrate. App.
Br. 20. Appellants further argue that the data provided in the Declaration
show that positioning the thickest metallic layer closest to the substrate
"provides a different and unexpectedly lower resistivity than having the
same overall thickness of metallic functional layers in a different
configuration." App. Br. 22. Particularly, Appellants contend that the
impact on resistivity due to providing first, second, and third sheets with
6
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
decreasing thickness was unexpected. Id. See also Deel. 2 ("[H]aving
decreasing functional layer thickness within the multilayer according to the
invention starting from the substrate surprisingly makes is (sic) possible to
obtain a better sheet resistance than in the configuration having constant
functional layer thickness or having increasing functional layer thickness
starting from the substrate.").
With respect to the data from Tables I and 3 of the Specification, it is
not clear that the data compare the claimed invention against the closest
prior art (Thiel). See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).
Further, a showing of unexpected results supported by factual
evidence must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the degree of
protection sought by the claims on appeal. In re Grasselli, 713 F .2d 731,
743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980).
Tables 1 and 3 report data corresponding to one example (Example 1) that
falls within a range of materials and thicknesses encompassed by claim 1,
and two comparative examples (Examples 2 and 3) that do not. Appellants
have not adequately explained how the data corresponding to the singular
Example 1 is commensurate in scope with the claims.
Moreover, comparative Example 3 reportedly exhibited a sheet
resistance value that is essentially the same as that of Example 1. See Spec.
17 (reporting 0.98 ohm per square for inventive Example 1 and 1 ohm per
square for comparative Example 3). Notably, the reported sheet resistance
for Comparative Example 3 also meets the range of less than or equal to 1
ohm per square recited in claim 1. Appellants do not persuasively explain
why these Examples reported in the Specification demonstrate an
unexpected lowering of sheet resistance based on the claimed arrangement
7
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
of metallic layers, particularly where comparative Example 3 achieved
essentially the same sheet resistance despite its use of a different
arrangement metallic layers.
With respect to the Declaration, as noted, Appellants' contention of
unexpected results is premised on a presentation of data which is illegible.
Therefore, we are unable to ascertain the probative value of the data
submitted as to whether they support Appellants' contention of unexpected
results. Moreover, Thiel already provides the thickest metallic layer closest
to the substrate, with subsequent metallic layers decreasing in thickness.
Thiel ,r,r 8, 4 7, Abstract.
Thus, in absence of an adequate showing, we find that the
preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner's obviousness
determination.
Silicon nitride
Appellants argue Thiel discloses nitrides only in connection with the
first dielectric layer relative to the substrate, and therefore fails to teach the
claimed configuration in which each anti-reflective layer comprises silicon
nitride. App. Br. 23-26. We disagree. Thiel identifies dielectric layers 40,
50, 62, and 64 positioned such that each metallic layer is located between
two dielectric layers. Thiel ,r,r 32, 40, 44, 49, Fig. 2. Thiel states that first
dielectric layer 40 can comprise "oxides of metal alloys" and that suitable
oxides of metal alloys include "silicon nitrides." Id. ,r 34. Thiel further
states that each of the second, third, and fourth dielectric layers can also
comprise a metal alloy oxide-containing layer "such as those described with
respect to the first" dielectric layer. Id. ,r,r 40, 44, 49. The foregoing
teachings in Thiel support the Examiner's finding that Thiel teaches
8
Appeal2018-005283
Application 13/391,466
providing silicon nitride as a component in each of the disclosed anti-
reflective dielectric layers.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of
reversible error. 9 Accordingly, we sustain Rejection I.
Rejections II and III
Appellants do not separately argue Rejection II or III, except to rely
on the same arguments presented in connection with Rejection I.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejections II and III for the reasons given above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-12, 14--20, and 22
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9 Appellants' Reply Brief principally addresses another reference, US
2003/0180547 Al, published September 25, 2003 (identified by Appellants
as "Buhay"), which the Examiner mentions in the Answer as additional
support for the finding that Thiel contemplates low emissivity coatings.
Reply Brief generally; Ans. 9. Because we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 without reliance on Buhay, Appellants' arguments regarding
purported deficiencies in that reference are not persuasive of reversible error.
9