Ex Parte Lisec

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10787744 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER LISEC
____________________

Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRADFORD E. KILE, and
RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter Lisec (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4. App. Br. 1. Claims 2 and 5-24
have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. Process for dividing glass sheets into glass
sheet shapes according to a given dividing pattern,
in which glass sheets are divided in a first division
step in one direction into glass sheet shapes, then
in a second division step in a direction which is
perpendicular to the first division step into glass
shapes, characterized in that glass sheet shapes
obtained after the first division step (separation site
A) are supplied at the same time to a second
separation site (B) for carrying out said second
division step, said second division step being
performed at the same time on a plurality of said
shapes disposed in side-by-side relation.

REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 1, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Lynch (US 3,279,664; iss. Oct. 18, 1966).1

1 See Office Action dated September 17, 2009, responding to the Amended
Appeal Brief dated May 19, 2009 (“App. Br.”). The Supplemental Appeal
Brief (“Supp. App. Br.”) dated January 19, 2010, responds to the Office
Action.
Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744

3
(2) Claims 1, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Flueckiger (CH 626,596 A5; pub. Nov. 30, 1981),
Applicant’s Admission (“AA”), and Bleick (US 4,646,602; iss. Mar. 3,
1987) and/or Niven (US 4,522,096; iss. Jun. 11, 1986).

ANALYSIS
Rejection (1) – Anticipation - Lynch
As to claim 1, the Examiner found Lynch discloses dividing glass
sheets in a first division step in the direction “D” to “E” with a first breaker
roll 135, and then in a second division step in the direction “E to “F” with a
breaker roll 164, perpendicular to the first division step, with the sheets from
the first division step supplied at the same time to a second separation site in
side-by-side relation. Ans. 3 (citing Lynch, col. 4, ll. 54-60; Figs. 1, 3). The
Examiner also found that “only after the first breaking step is complete and
all three rectangles are on the transfer station is the second drive means
actuated, causing the movement and breaking of the rectangles as at ‘E’
simultaneously across multiple lines to be broken in the transverse direction
relative to the first breaks.” Id. at 3-4 (citing Lynch, col. 16, ll. 64-72).
Appellant contends that Lynch does not disclose breaking more than
one light at the same time, but discloses that the lights are broken one at a
time by the breaking roll 164. Supp. App. Br. 2. Appellant contends that
Lynch “discloses only a process wherein a single light is divided at various
positions by a plurality of breaker rolls disposed in a second set.” Id. at 3
(citing Lynch, col. 16, ll. 53-68, col. 17. l. 71 – col. 18, l. 7). These
contentions are not persuasive.
Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744

4
Figure 1 of Lynch depicts an apparatus for cutting glass sheet
including a series of stations “A” to “F” for performing operations on glass
sheets to produce panes or lights. See Lynch, col. 2, ll. 26-27, col. 3, ll. 25-
30. Cutting station D forms scores in a glass sheet in a first direction and in
a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. See Lynch, col. 4, ll.
11-26. The scored sheet is transferred to transfer station E. During this
transfer, the sheet is broken along the score lines extending in the first
direction by breaker roll 135 to produce cut lights, which are deposited upon
conveyor belts 140 of the transfer station E. See Lynch, col. 16, ll. 38-48.
Lynch discloses that when the entire glass sheet directed from cutting station
D has been broken along the cuts, and the cut lights are all disposed upon the
conveyor belts 140, the motor driving the conveyor belts 140 is turned off.
See Lynch, col. 16, ll. 63-68. Then, a second conveying system is actuated
to direct the partially-broken lights off of transfer station E in a direction at
right angles to the on travel of the lights. See Lynch, col. 16, ll. 69-72. The
partially-broken lights are received by a breaker roll assembly 164 as they
are discharged from transfer station E. See Lynch, col. 17, l. 71 – col. 18, l.
1; fig. 1. The breaker roll assembly 164 breaks the cuts extending along the
second direction. See Lynch, col. 18, 1-7; fig. 1.
Figure 3 of Lynch shows a schematic view of a sheet of glass as it
appears at each station A–F. See Lynch, col. 2, ll. 31-32. Figure 3 shows a
sheet at station D with score lines extending in two respectively
perpendicular first and second directions. The sheet is moved from station D
to station E, resulting in the sheet being divided along score lines extending
in the first direction to produce three individual pieces. The three pieces are
moved from station E to station F, resulting in the pieces being divided
Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744

5
along score lines extending in the second direction. Figure 3 shows that the
score lines of the pieces positioned at station E are aligned with each other
along the second direction.
Appellant acknowledges that “a plurality of ‘lights’ is [sic]
simultaneously forwarded through the breaker rolls 164.” Reply Br. 1.
However, Appellant contends that the claimed “second division step”
requires that all the score lines in all of the shapes undergoing the second
division step must be mutually aligned so that the score lines reach the
dividing means at the same time, but that Lynch does not disclose that the
lights arranged side-by-side have aligned score lines. Id. at 1-2.
First, claim 1 does not recite the term “score line,” much less recite
that all shapes undergoing the second division step must be mutually aligned
and reach a dividing means at the same time. Rather, claim 1 only requires
that the second division step be performed on a plurality of shapes disposed
in a side-by-side relation at the same time. Accordingly, this contention is
not commensurate with the claim scope.
Second, Appellant also acknowledges that Figure 3 of Lynch shows
that the scores are mutually aligned at station E. Reply Br. 2. However,
Appellant contends that Figure 3 is a schematic drawing and is not supported
by the description. Id. The drawings form part of the Lynch disclosure.
While the Examiner did not find that Lynch describes the scores aligned at
station E, that does not mean “that things patent drawings show clearly are
to be disregarded.” See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).
Indeed, “[d]escription for the purposes of anticipation can be drawings alone
as well as by words.” Id.
Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744

6
Appellant also contends that the arrangement shown in Figure 3
would not occur in practicing Lynch’s method. Id. (citing Lynch, col. 15, ll.
17-26). However, this description in Lynch does not appear to support
Appellant’s contention.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated
by Lynch. Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 3 and 4.
Hence, we also sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4.

Rejection (2) – Obviousness - Flueckiger, AA, Bleick, and/or Niven
Appellant states that claims 1, 3, and 4 stand or fall together. App. Br.
2. We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 3 and 4 standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found Flueckiger discloses a glass processing assembly
in which glass enters a cutting machine (24), which scores the glass in the X
and Y directions; the glass is then transported to a first breaking machine
where it is divided along the X-direction; and then a separate conveying
device (50) moves the glass in the X-direction to a second braking machine
(56), which breaks the glass along the Y-direction scores. Ans. 5 (citing
Flueckiger, Fig. 1; English-language Abstract). The Examiner also found
that Appellant admitted that the methods and mechanisms used for breaking
a piece of glass are well known in the art. Id. The Examiner stated that
“[t]he only question then, is whether it is obvious to first cut pieces
longitudinally and then cut all of the resulting minor-pieces across
transversely together in a single step.” Id. at 6.
The Examiner relied on Bleick for teaching severing cheese
longitudinally into pieces, and then cutting pieces “simultaneously, and at
Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744

7
the same time transversely.” Ans. 6. The Examiner also found Niven
teaches severing a web longitudinally “and then severing together,
simultaneously, and at the same time each of the resulting pieces into
smaller pieces.” Id. The Examiner concluded that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been capable of severing the glass of Flueckiger, in the
transverse direction simultaneously across multiple pieces, as taught by
Niven or Bleick, to increase efficiency. The Examiner also determined that
these teachings, which allow multiple strands resulting from a longitudinal
cut to be simultaneously transversely severed, also apply to glass breaking,
and breaking two pieces (of glass) at the same time will be predictable. Id.
Appellant contends that Flueckiger teaches moving glass sheet shapes
obtained after opening the X-cuts to the cutting device 56 “one by one, that
means one after another.” App. Br. 5-6. Appellant contends that Flueckiger
does not teach supplying glass sheet shapes obtained after dividing glass
plates in the X-direction “jointly (i.e., simultaneously more than one) to a
second cutting site,” or “that glass sheet shapes are supplied side-by-side to
the cutting site B for the Y-cuts that simultaneously divide these shapes into
glass shapes along the Y-cuts.” Id. at 6.
Appellant also contends that one of ordinary skill in the art of glass
cutting would not have looked to Bleick and Niven. App. Br. 4. Appellant
contends that a person skilled in the art would not consider Bleick because
cheese is soft and is cut using a completely different technique from that
used in dividing glass sheets. Id. at 7. Appellant also contends that Niven
“enables the production only of approximately square or rectangular pieces
of reproducible size, which is not acceptable when glass sheets are to be
divided in the present invention, because the glass shapes obtained must
Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744

8
have a very exact size and shape. Id. at 8. These contentions are not
persuasive.
In response, the Examiner stated that Bleick and Niven are concerned
with the same problem as Flueckiger, that is, the separation of work pieces
in the X-direction and the Y-direction. Ans. 7. The Examiner also stated
that Bleick and Niven demonstrate a common sense principle “that
combined secondary transverse severing is more efficient than individual
secondary transverse severing, and would result in the same cuts taking
place, but at a faster rate.” Ans. 8. The evidence establishes that techniques
for cutting glass sheets in two perpendicular directions are well known in the
art, and that techniques for simultaneously cutting a plurality of pieces of a
material in a direction transverse to a previous cutting direction of the
material are also known. Claim 1 does not recite that the glass shapes
obtained must have a very exact size and shape, as Appellant contends.
Bleick and Niven are not directed to glass cutting; however, they deal with
the problem of separating a material in a first direction to produce a plurality
of pieces of the material, and then simultaneously separating a plurality of
the pieces in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Appellant has not provided any persuasive argument why this problem is not
reasonably pertinent to the problem they address. Appellant also does not
address the Examiner’s rationale for making the combination, or provide any
persuasive reason why the combination of teachings would not yield
predictable results. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and its
dependent claims 3 and 4 as obvious over Flueckiger, AA, Bleick, and/or
Niven.

Appeal 2011-001910
Application 10/787,744

9
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 4 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh