Ex Parte Mizusugi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2002

08858116 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2002)

1 Application for patent filed May 19, 1997. According to
the official records of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO),
this application is a continuation of Application Serial Number
08/548,418, filed on October 26, 1995, and now abandoned, which
is a continuation of Application Serial Number 08/204,536, filed
on March 2, 1994, and now abandoned.
1
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 39
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte TETSUYA MIZUSUGI, KAZUNORI YUKI
and MITSUO TANAKA
________________
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,1161
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before METZ, GARRIS and PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
METZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's
refusal to allow claims 5 through 8 and 10, all the claims
remaining in this application.
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
2
THE INVENTION
The appealed subject matter is directed to a method for
shaping a sheet of glass heated to nearly its softening point.
The method comprises placing a heated sheet of glass on a ring
mold and subsequently lowering a mold having two shaping sections
in which a vacuum generated therein brings the heated sheet of
glass into proximity to the mold's shaping surfaces. A vacuum is
generated in the first shaping area to attract the heated sheet
to the mold's surface to shape a first area of the sheet.
Thereafter, a vacuum is generated in a second section of the mold
to attract the heated glass to the mold's second shaping surface
to shape the area of the heated sheet complementary to the first
area. After shaping the glass sheet is released onto a quenching
ring and transported on the quenching ring to a quenching zone.
According to appellants, their method obtains a shaped glass
sheet having higher quality than glass sheets as prepared by the
prior art methods. Additionally, appellants allege that their
method avoids damaging the glass sheet as happens using the prior
art methods.
Claim 10, the only independent claim before us for our
consideration, is believed to be adequately representative of the
appealed subject matter and is reproduced below for a more facile
understanding of the claimed invention.
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
3
10. A method of shaping a sheet of glass heated nearly to a
softening point thereof with a suction mold including first
and second suction chambers having respective first and
second shaping surface areas, comprising the steps of:

placing the sheet of glass on a ring mold;

lowering said suction mold toward said ring mold to an
extent that the shaping surface areas come close to the
sheet of glass on said ring mold;

developing a first vacuum in said first suction chamber at a
first time to attract a first area of the sheet of glass
against the first shaping surface area to shape the first
area of the sheet of glass and then developing a second
vacuum in said second suction chamber at a second time to
attract a second area of the sheet of glass against the
second shaping surface area to shape the second area of the
sheet of glass complementary to the first area, said first
time being before said second time so that the sheet of
glass is successively brought against the first and second
shaping surface areas; and

then releasing the sheet of glass from the first and second
shaping areas of the suction mold onto a quenching ring and
moving the sheet of glass on the quenching ring to
quenching.
THE REFERENCES
The references of record which are being relied on by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Seymour 4,229,200 October 21, 1980
Kuster et al. (Kuster) 4,859,225 August 22, 1989
McMaster 4,609,391 September 2, 1986
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 5 through 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable because the subject matter claimed
therein would have been obvious at the time appellants made their
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
4
invention from the disclosure of Seymour considered with either
Kuster or McMaster. We affirm.
OPINION
Appellants have failed to argue with any reasonable degree
of specificity the patentability of any dependent claim. Further,
on page 3 of their brief, appellants state that claims 5 through
8 and 10 are considered to stand or fall together. We shall
decide this appeal based on the patentability of independent
claim 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192 (c)(7), first sentence.
Accordingly, the patentability of all the claims stands or falls
with independent claim 10 on which they depend. In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re
Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709, 231 USPQ 640, 642 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We begin by analyzing the scope and content of appellants'
claims. Appellants claim a method for shaping a glass sheet
heated nearly to the sheet's softening point. Appellants method
utilizes a shaping mold having respective first and second
shaping surfaces and which also include corresponding separate
first and second vacuum chambers. We refer to appellants'
specification at page 8, line 5 through page 9, line 22; page 11,
lines 7 through 15 and to Figures 2, 4 and 5 of the drawings for
an explanation of the details of suitable shaping molds for use
in the second step of appellants' process. In the third step of
the claimed process a first vacuum is generated in the first
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
5
section of the shaping mold to attract the heated sheet of glass
to the shaping mold and to shape a first area of the sheet
corresponding to the shape of the first shaping surface.
Subsequently a vacuum is generated in the second section of the
shaping mold to attract a second area of the heated sheet of
glass complementary to the first area of the heated sheet of
glass against the second section of the shaping mold to shape the
second area of the heated sheet of glass corresponding to the
shape of the second shaping surface. In the fourth step of the
claimed method the shaped heated sheet of glass is released from
the shaping molds onto a quenching ring and moved on the
quenching ring to a quenching station.
Appellants claim a process "comprising" four positively
recited manipulative steps. The term "comprising" is recognized
as an open-ended claim term. That is, as a "comprising" claim,
Claim 10 does not exclude any other steps disclosed in the prior
art, including both those disclosed but not claimed by appellants
and those neither disclosed nor contemplated by appellants. In re
Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981).
According to page 5 of appellants' brief, the examiner's
stated rejection is not sustainable because Seymour, the primary
reference, and both McMaster and Kuster, the secondary
references, are directed to processes so different from the
claimed process that they would not have suggested to a person of
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
6
ordinary skill in the art appellants' claimed process.
Specifically, appellants urge that the examiner has
mischaracterized the disclosure of Seymour which is directed to
so-called "drop forming" glass sheets, where heated sheets of
glass held above a mold by the force of a vacuum are dropped to a
shaping mold below, and not vacuum forming as claimed by
appellants. See the reply brief at page 3. According to
appellants' arguments, Seymour teaches the use of physical force
applied against the glass sheet, not a vacuum, to shape the glass
sheet. For reasons set forth fully below, we do not find any of
appellants' arguments to be persuasive.
Seymour, as correctly observed by appellants, is directed to
a so-called drop forming method of shaping glass sheets wherein a
heat-softened glass sheet is elevated by means of a vacuum platen
which holds the heated glass sheet against it in register and
thereafter the glass sheet is released onto a shaping mold below
to effect final shaping (column 2, lines 26 through 46).
Additionally, Seymour discloses auxiliary shaping means used in
conjunction with the vacuum platen are utilized to impart
localized curvature to side portions of the glass sheet, that is,
the heated glass sheet is shaped. The flat part of the platen is
designed to engage less than the full area of the sheet, leaving
side portions of the glass sheet extending beyond the flat side
of the vacuum platen. The auxiliary shaping means act upon the
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
2 Seymour discloses the alternative use of lifting rings to
raise the heated glass sheet towards the flat vacuum platen in
another embodiment of his invention. See column 10, lines 16
through 39.
7
portions of the glass sheet extending beyond the flat portion of
the vacuum platen as the glass sheet is held on the flat platen
by vacuum to shape the portions of the glass sheet extending
beyond the flat surface of the vacuum platen corresponding to the
shape of the auxiliary shaping means (see column 2, lines 49
through 60). We refer to elements 40, 120 and 121 in Figure 16
and their definition at column 11, lines 57 through 62 for a
description of the vacuum platen and the "auxiliary shaping
means."
In one embodiment described in Figures 16 through 20,
Seymour discloses forming glass sheets using auxiliary shaping
means. In this embodiment, on which the examiner has relied as
the basis for rejecting the claims, the flat vacuum platen 40 is
flanked by a pair of curved shaping blocks 120. The curved
shaping blocks are stationary and are provided with vacuum means
via conduits 121. A hearth block 1252 which extends beyond the
ends of the platen and underlies the shaping blocks supports the
heated sheet of glass. The flat vacuum platen 40 may be lowered
vertically to engage and lift the heated sheet of glass by
vacuum. As the sheet is raised by the vacuum platen a lifting
frame 126 is raised to follow the heated glass sheet as it is
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
8
raised. The lifting frame is maintained in close proximity to or
in light contact with the underside of the heated glass sheet.
When the vacuum platen reaches its uppermost position the lifting
frame continues to move upwardly to bring the shaping rails 124
"into close proximity to the curved shaping surfaces of the
shaping blocks 120" (column 12, lines 11 through 16). Preferably,
vacuum is drawn through the shaping blocks 120 to maintain the
adjacent portions of the heated glass sheet in contact with the
shaping blocks as the lifting frame 126 is lowered to its
retracted position (column 12, lines 16 through 20). Thereafter,
the vacuum is released in the flat vacuum platen 40 and in the
shaping blocks 120 and the glass sheet is dropped onto the
shaping mold 128 to further shape the flat central portion and
wherein the relatively deep bend in the side portions of the
glass sheet is retained or further deepened (column 12, lines 24
through 31). The examiner relies on McMaster and Kuster as
evidence that "quenching rings" were well known in the art of
glass shaping for transporting a shaped sheet of glass from the
shaping station to a quenching station.
We consider appellants' argument that Seymour is directed to
a different process than claimed is founded on too narrow a
reading of both claim 10 and Seymour's disclosure. Claim 10
merely requires that a "suction mold" is lowered toward the
heated sheet of glass so that the shaping surface of the "suction
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
9
mold" is "close" to the sheet of glass. This is precisely shown
and described in Seymour's description of the vacuum platen 40
and in his description of his glass shaping process using the
auxiliary shaping blocks 120. Further because the heated sheet of
glass in Seymour is soft and capable of being shaped, when it
came in contact with Seymour's flat vacuum platen by the
attraction thereto resulting from the application of a vacuum,
the glass sheet would necessarily take the shape of Seymour's
vacuum platen, in this case a flat, planar surface. It does not
matter that Seymour's vacuum platen is also used to move the
heated sheet of glass because the vacuum platen does impart shape
to the heated glass sheet. We also note that appellants' suction
mold, like Seymour's vacuum platen, also moves the heated sheet
of glass in appellants' process (see page 9, lines 23 and 24 of
the specification). Further, appellants, like Seymour, develop a
vacuum first in the chamber corresponding to the vacuum platen 40
in Seymour and subsequently in the second shaping surface areas
corresponding to Seymour's shaping boxes 120.
While Seymour does provide for additional shaping after the
release of the vacuum in his process by dropping the partially
shaped sheet of glass on a mold for final shaping, there is still
shaping performed by the shaping boxes 120 when the glass sheet
is soft from heating and lifted from the hearth block (note
Seymour's disclosure that the shape of the glass from contact
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
10
with the shaping blocks is retained). That is all that Claim 10
requires. Further, we observe that Claim 10 merely recites a
"suction mold" and appellants have disclosed that useful suction
molds include molds with convex surfaces, concave surfaces, "an
upper suction mold", "a lower suction mold" or a "hanging press
mold." At page 7 of the specification appellants describe the
lower central area of the suction chamber as having a
"substantially flat bottom panel which serves as a central flat
area of the shaping surface." Thus, we do not understand Claim 10
to exclude or distinguish from the vacuum platen 40 used by
Seymour.
As a "comprising" claim, Claim 10 also does not exclude the
steps in Seymour providing for additional shaping after the
removal of a vacuum from the glass sheet or the additional curved
shaping rails used in Seymour's method before the application of
a vacuum. Claim 10 does not recite or require any particular
degree of shaping but merely requires shaping. Seymour's process
clearly shapes the heated glass sheets while they are in contact
with the vacuum platen 40 and shaping blocks 120 and, therefore,
meets the " to shape" limitation recited in Claim 10. Appellants'
argument that after shaping the glass sheet in their process is
moved "directly to the quenching ring" is simply not reflected in
the language of claim 10. Moreover, as a "comprising" claim,
Claim 10 does not exclude other intervening steps between the
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
11
shaping stage and the quenching stage.
Appellants have not proffered any persuasive argument with
respect to the examiner's reliance on McMaster and Kuster as
evidence that "quenching rings" were well-known expedients in the
glass shaping art for transporting hot, shaped sheets of glass
from a shaping stage to a quenching stage. Rather, appellants
have simply argued that McMaster and Kuster, like Seymour, are
not relevant because they, too, are directed to drop forming.
Nevertheless, as we have concluded above, appellants' claims are
of such a scope as not to exclude further subsequent shaping by
dropping the already-shaped hot sheet of glass on a shaping mold.
We also observe as we have noted above that Seymour does disclose
the use of ring molds for moving heated glass sheets in a shaping
process.
Having concluded that the examiner has made out a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the appealed subject
matter, it is necessary for us to consider appellants' rebuttal
evidence, if any, and to reconsider the prima facie case anew in
light of all the evidence. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, except for
appellants allegation on page 5 of their brief of the alleged
benefits of the process of Claim 10 compared to the prior art,
appellants have neither presented any rebuttal evidence nor
advanced any arguments with respect to any probative showing of
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
12
surprising or unexpected results represented by objective
evidence in this record. It by now well-settled that attorney
argument does not take the place of probative, objective evidence
of non-obviousness. Accordingly, the prima facie case of
obviousness stands unrebutted.
OTHER ISSUES
In reviewing the entire record in this proceeding we have
noted that cited in the prosecution of both Seymour and Kuster is
U.S. Patent Number 3,846,104, issued on November 5, 1974 to
Seymour. Therein, in Figure 1, Seymour describes a process for
shaping a sheet of glass heated to its softening point by placing
a heated sheet of glass on a ring mold (column 5, lines 47
through 51; column 6, lines 4 through 6); lowering a vacuum
suction mold to the heated glass sheet to shape the same by
vacuum (column 6, lines 20 through 44); and, subsequently
transporting the shaped glass sheet via a tempering ring to a
quenching station (column 6, lines 45 through 48; lines 70
through 75). In the event appellants elect to further prosecute
the subject matter of this application in another application
both the appellants and the examiner should consider the
relevance of this reference to the claimed subject matter under
the statute.
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
13
SUMMARY
The rejection of the claims 5 through 8 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner 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
ANDREW H. METZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
AHM/gjh
Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
14
CURTIS B. HAMBRE
MERCHANT, GOULD, SMITH, EDELL,
WELTER AND SCHMIDT
3100 NORWEST CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402