Ex Parte Liang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

13826011 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
GICO-113 6621
EXAMINER
BURKHART, ELIZABETH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/826,011 03/14/2013 Liang LIANG
143743 7590 09/22/2017
Dority & Manning, PA and Guardian Glass, LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602-1449
09/22/2017 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 LIANG LIANG, RICHARD BLACKER,
NIKHIL D. KALYANKAR, and SCOTT JEWHURST
Appeal 2017-000829
Application 13/826,011
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—3, 5—22, 24—27, and 31 of
Application 13/826,011 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(July 31, 2015) 2—5. Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Guardian Industries Corp. and Intermollecular Inc. are identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000829
Application 13/826,011
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a method of making a
coated article including an anti-reflection coating on a glass substrate.
Spec., Abst. The method comprises the following: mixing at least a tri-
alkoxysilane based binder and a tetra-alkoxysilane based binder with at least
silica based nanoparticles and a solvent in forming a coating sol formulation;
aging the coating sol formulation at least about two weeks so as to provide
an aged coating sol formulation; coating at least a portion of said aged
coating sol formulation onto the glass substrate to form a coating; and
heating said glass substrate and said coating. Id. It is asserted that anti-
reflection glasses show improved mechanical strength and higher
transmittances. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below with certain language bolded and italicized for emphasis:
1. A method of making a coated article including an anti-
reflection coating on a glass substrate, the method comprising:
mixing at least a tri-alkoxysilane based binder and a
tetra-alkoxysilane based binder with at least silica based
nanoparticles and a solvent in forming a coating sol
formulation;
aging the coating sol formulation for more than three
weeks so as to provide an aged coating sol formulation-,
coating at least a portion of said aged coating sol
formulation onto the glass substrate to form a coating; and
heating said glass substrate and said coating, wherein a
mass ratio of the tri-alkoxysilane based binder and tetra-
2
Appeal 2017-000829
Application 13/826,011
alkoxysilane based binder to the silica based nanoparticles in
the coating sol formulation is from 0.1:1 to 20:1.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—22, 24—27, and 31 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kalyankar et al. (US 2013/0034722
Al, pub. Feb. 7, 2013) (hereinafter “Kalyankar ’722”) in view of Takamatsu
et al. (US 5,394,269, issued Feb. 28, 1995) (hereinafter “Takamatsu”) and
Moritz et al. (US 2004/0121451 Al, pub. June 24, 2004) (hereinafter
“Moritz”). Final Act. 2—5.
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kalyankar ’722 in view of Takamatsu, Moritz, and Kalyankar et al. (US
2013/0095237 Al, pub. April 18, 2013) (hereinafter “Kalyankar ’237”). Id.
at 5.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—22, 24—27,
and 31 as obvious over Kalyankar ’722 in view of Takamatsu and Moritz.
Id. at 2—5. In support of such rejection, the Examiner finds that Moritz
teaches that the sol is aged for “a few weeks” in order to permit ongoing
polymerization. Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that Moritz does not teach
“aging the coating sol formulation for more than three weeks” as required by
claim 1. Appeal Br. 6.
The Specification describes the ageing process as follows:
During the aging of the coating sol solution, hydrolysis and
condensation occur. The hydrolysis takes hours to occur
3
Appeal 2017-000829
Application 13/826,011
whereas the condensation takes at least about ten days or at
least about two weeks to occur to a desirable extent. An
example of aging is at approximately room and/or ambient
temperature in a plastic sealed drum. It is preferred that the
coating sol is aged at least about 10 days, more preferably at
least about two weeks, and even more preferably at least about
three weeks (e.g., at approximately room and/or ambient
temperature). If the coating sol is aged less than this, it has
been found that the durability of the resulting is not as good
compared to if aging for at least two or three weeks is allowed.
Spec, at 16136. Thus, the aged sol of the Specification is a sol which has
undergone some degree of polymerization.
Appellants assert that the portion of Moritz relied upon by the
Examiner concerns a “dried gel” (xerogel) and has “nothing to do with aging
of a sol gel, and do[es] not even describe aging a sol gel in any respect.”
Appeal Br. 7. Appellants further argue that the cited portion of Moritz
“discusses polymerization after gelation — i.e., after a coating has been
formed. It is this coating in Mortiz that is aged, NOT the liquid gel used to
make the coating.” Id. (capitalization in original).
Moritz teaches that sols are produced by hydrolysis of a metal-
alkoxide and subsequent polymerization of the resulting metal hydroxides.
Moritz H 3—6. Moritz further teaches that additional polymerization of the
sol yields a gel. Id. 17. Extraction of alcohol and water from such a gel
yields a “xerogel.” Id. 17. Moritz additionally teaches that polymerization
continues well after gelation and that “[t]his is called ageing.” Id. 19.
Polymerization continues during drying. Id. 19. Moritz describes the
ageing process as follows:
The further the polymerisation goes on, the more stable the gel
or xerogel becomes. However, at room temperature the
polymerisation will in practice stop after a few weeks ageing
4
Appeal 2017-000829
Application 13/826,011
and the xerogel will not become totally stable. If the
temperature is raised, the polymerization reaction can be
accelerated, further stabilisation and shrinkage occurs, and
more internal stresses are introduced into the xerogel.
If the temperature is raised high enough (around 1000° C.
for monolithic Si02-gels) the gel or xerogel becomes a pure
oxide and there are no OH-groups present in the material.
Id. 9-10 (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Moritz to show that “the sol is aged for
continued polymerization to form a more stable gel, wherein the
polymerization does not stop until after a few weeks of ageing.” Final Act.
3. This is well supported by, inter alia, Moritz’s statement that “[t]he
further the polymerisation goes on, the more stable the gel or xerogel
becomes.” Taken as a whole, the teachings of Moritz regarding ageing
would be understood by a person of skill in the art to apply both to gels and
xerogels.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood Moritz to teach “aging the coating sol formulation for more
than three weeks so as to provide an aged coating sol formulation.”
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claim 7 as obvious over
Kalyankar ’722 in view of Takamatsu, Moritz, and Kalyankar ‘237. Final
Act. 5. Appellants assert that such rejection is in error for the same reasons
as with regard to Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 8—9. Appellants do not present
unique argument regarding claim 7. Id. Accordingly, we find that
Appellants have not shown error in the rejection of claim 7 for the same
reasons set forth with regard to claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—22, 24—27, and 31.
5
Appeal 2017-000829
Application 13/826,011
CONCLUSION
The rejections of 1—3, 5, 6, 8—22, 24—27, and 31 as obvious over
Kalyankar ’722 in view of Takamatsu and Moritz are affirmed. The
rejection of claim 7 over Kalyankar ’722 in view of Takamatsu, Moritz, and
Kalyankar ‘237 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
6