Ex Parte Tamamura et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

14422472 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/422,472 02/19/2015
513 7590 06/28/2019
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
1025 Connecticut A venue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shusaku Tamamura
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.
2015-0lSOA 7267
EXAMINER
HOFFMANN, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUSAKU T AMAMURA,
TAKAHIDE NAKAMURA, and KA TSUTOSHI FUJIWARA
Appeal 2018-006337
Application 14/422,472
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 of
Application 14/422,472 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(Aug. 14, 2017). Appellants1 seek reversal of the rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1 Nippon Electric Glass Co. is identified as the applicant and the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006337
Application 14/422,472
BACKGROUND
The '4 72 Application describes an overflow downdraw method for
manufacturing a glass sheet, which is used in a flat panel display. Spec
,i,i 1, 2.
Claim 7 is representative of the '472 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from Appendix I to the Appeal Brief:
7. A method of manufacturing a glass sheet, the method
compnsmg:
causing streams of molten glass to flow downward along
each of a plurality of outer surface portions of a forming device,
the plurality of outer surface portions of the forming device
converging at a bottom edge of the forming device; and
fusing the streams of molten glass together at the bottom
edge of the forming device to form the glass sheet;
wherein the forming device comprises at least one wall
portion positioned so as to guide a widthwise end portion of
one of the streams of molten glass, and at least one protruding
piece which is contiguous with the at least one wall portion,
wherein the at least one protruding piece is positioned so
as to guide a portion of the one of the streams of molten glass
vertically downward along a surface thereof to a position below
the bottom edge of the forming device,
wherein the at least one protruding piece extends away
from the at least one wall portion in a first width direction or a
second width direction opposite to the first width direction,
extends downward below the bottom edge of the forming
device, and is arranged at least at one of a plurality of
widthwise end portions of the bottom edge of the forming
device,
wherein a first of the plurality of widthwise end portions
of the bottom edge of the forming device extends in the first
width direction and a second of the plurality of widthwise end
2
Appeal 2018-006337
Application 14/422,472
portions of the bottom edge of the forming device extends in
the second width direction, and
wherein the at least one protruding piece comprises a
distal end which extends in a straight line substantially parallel
to the bottom edge of the forming device, and an acute portion
which extends vertically downward to the distal end.
Br. 17 (App. I) ( emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boratav.2 Final Act. 3; Answer 3.
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Boratav and Delia. 3 Final Act. 8;
Answer 9.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for the reversal of the obviousness rejections of
claims 8, 11, 12, and 14 on the basis of limitations present in independent
claim 7. See Br. 11-15. We, therefore, limit our analysis to claim 7 for
these claims. Independent claim 11 and dependent claims 8, 12, and 14 will
stand or fall with claim 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 11, and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boratav. Final Act. 3; Answer 3.
2 US 2007/0130994 Al, published June 14, 2007.
3 US 2006/0236722 Al, published Oct. 26, 2006.
3
Appeal 2018-006337
Application 14/422,472
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner found that Boratav's method of
drawing a glass ribbon from a molten glass sheet via a downdraw process
teaches or suggests the claimed method, with the exception that Boratav
does not disclose that "at least one protruding piece is contiguous with ... at
least one wall portion" as recited in the claim. Answer 3-5 ( citing Boratav
,i 26; Figure 1 ).
Boratav's Figure 1, which illustrates a perspective, partial cross
sectional view of a fusion downdraw apparatus, is reproduced below.
FIG.1
Figure 1 illustrates features of a downdraw apparatus, which includes
channel 12 for retaining molten glass 24, a pair of restricting dams 28,
overflow weirs 16, forming wedge 10, covered with opposed forming
surface portions 18, 20, which converge at root 22, and virgin-surfaced glass
32.
4
Appeal 2018-006337
Application 14/422,472
Boratav's Figure 7, which illustrates a cross sectional view of a lower
portion of the forming wedge of Figure 1, is reproduced below.
10
(
"
72 ___)
FIG. 7
Figure 7 illustrates features of a lower portion of forming wedge 10,
which includes electrically conductive keel member 64.
The Examiner found that Boratav' s keel member 64 meets the
"protruding piece" limitation of claim 7. Answer 4-5 ( citing Boratav ,i 38;
Fig. 7). The Examiner further found that Boratav' s restricting dam 28 meets
the "wall portion" limitation in the same claim. Answer 4 ( citing Boratav
,i 26; Fig. 1 ). According to the Examiner, although Boratav does not
disclose that keel member 64 is contiguous with dam 28, Boratav teaches
"that there is obviously a need to have electrical contact with a power
supply." Answer 5 (citing Boratav ,i 35). The Examiner thus determined
that "[i]t would have been obvious to have at least one electrical connection
in []dam 28 ... to supply electricity to the ... keel member 64[,] so as to
heat the keel member." Answer 5. The Examiner finds that such an
electrical connection would necessarily mean that Boratav' s "protruding
5
Appeal 2018-006337
Application 14/422,472
piece ([i.e.,] electrically conductive keel member 64) would be contiguous
with the connection (and thus contiguous with the wall)," i.e., dam 28.
Answer 10.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over
Boratav should be reversed because: (1) Boratav's Figures 3 and 7, which
describe two separate embodiments, show that the configuration and
positioning of conductive members 42 and 64 in these embodiments are
completely different and, therefore, cannot be modified as proposed by the
Examiner, Br. 12; (2) Boratav does not provide the location of the power
supply or the electrical contacts, id. at 13; (3) the Examiner has not provided
any evidence why it would have been obvious to include at least one
electrical connection in Boratav's restricting dam 28, id.; and (4) if the
electrical contact connection between Boratav' s restricting dam 28 and keel
member 64 is an electrical cable, restricting dam 28 and keel member 64
would have been non-contiguous. Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
First, we are not persuaded by argument (1) because the Examiner did
not rely on Boratav's Figure 3. Rather, the Examiner relied upon the
disclosure related to Figure 3 to show that at the time of the invention, there
was a "need in the art" to make the proposed modification. See Answer 11
(citing MPEP § 2143(I)(E)(i)). Namely, Boratav explicitly discloses in the
relied upon disclosure "that there would obviously need to be an electrical
connection between an electrically conductive member and the electrical
power supply." Boratav ,-J 35 (emphasis added).
Second, Appellants' argument (2) is not dispositive. Boratav teaches
that there is a need to provide an electrical connection between an
6
Appeal 2018-006337
Application 14/422,472
electrically conductive member and an electrical power supply-a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have reasonably
inferred that at least providing an electrical connection through dam 28 to
keel member 64 may overcome such issues, regardless of the power supply's
or the electrical contacts' location. It has been established that "the
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also 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).
Third, Appellants' argument (3) is not directed to the Examiner's
rationale set forth in the Answer for modifying Boratav's wall 28 and
forming wedge 10 to incorporate electrically conductive protruding keel
member 64.
As the Examiner persuasively reasoned, there is no other location to
make electrical contact because wedge 10' s other surfaces would have been
surrounded by molten glass. Answer 5. The Examiner reasonably
concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to try to establish [an]
electrical connection through the dam, because there would have been a
limited number of locations through which the electrical connection [ could]
be established (i.e.[,] top, bottom, and the four sides)." Id.
We, therefore, find that Appellants' argument fails to identify
reversible error in the Examiner's reasoned determination.
7
Appeal 2018-006337
Application 14/422,472
Fourth, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument ( 4) because
Boratav's teachings regarding electrical connections are not limited to
external cables. Rather, Boratav teaches that electrical connections in a
glass making apparatus can be accomplished through coils, bars, and,
preferably, fine wires that do not contact the manufactured glass. Boratav
,i 35. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
gleaned from these teachings that an electrical contact connection between
Boratav's restricting dam 28 and keel member 64 could be established
through internal means. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1264-65.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we are not
persuaded by any of Appellants' arguments for reversal of the obviousness
rejection of claim 7.
We, therefore, affirm Rejection 1 of claims 7, 8, 11, and 12.
Rejection 2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Boratav and Delia. Final Act. 8;
Answer 9.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm Rejection 2 of claim 14.
DECISION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the§ 103(a) rejections of
claims 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 of the '472 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8