Philip LINGLE et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2021

2020006327 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

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.
13/338,644 12/28/2011 Philip J. LINGLE GDE-2011-
PAT-0003-US-NP
6007
124194 7590 09/30/2021
Guardian Glass, LLC (Nixon)
c/o KCPS IP Dept./Shannon Gonsalves
4111 E. 37th Street North
Mail Stop T2C
Wichita, KS 67220
EXAMINER
PICHLER, MARIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2872
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2021 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):
koch_pair@firsttofile.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
ptomail@nixonvan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP J. LINGLE and WILLEM DEN BOER
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 7–10, 25, and 26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed December 28, 2011
(“Spec.”); the Final Office Action dated January 13, 2020 (“Final Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed June 12, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
dated July 9, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed September 9, 2020
(“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Guardian Glass, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a mirror. Spec. ¶ 1. Independent claims 1
and 2, reproduced below, illustrate the claimed subject matter:
1. A mirror, comprising:
a glass substrate;
a multilayer thin film coating supported by the glass
substrate, the multilayer thin film coating comprising, in order
moving away from the glass substrate:
a first silicon-inclusive layer comprising silicon
nitride,
a metallic or substantially metallic reflective layer
comprising aluminum from 400-600 angstroms thick,
a 5-150 angstrom thick layer comprising Ni and/or
Cr in direct contact with the metallic or substantially metallic
layer comprising aluminum, and
a second silicon-inclusive layer comprising silicon
nitride in direct contact with the layer comprising Ni and/or Cr;
and
a non-paint protective film disposed directly over
and contacting the second silicon-inclusive layer comprising
silicon nitride, the protective film having a peel strength of 200-
500 cN / 20 mm wide strip,
wherein the metallic or substantially metallic
reflective layer comprising aluminum from 400-600 angstroms
thick is substantially thicker than each of the first silicon
inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride, the second silicon
inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride, and the layer
comprising Ni and/or Cr, and wherein the second silicon
inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride is thicker than the first
silicon inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride;
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

3
wherein the protective film is configured to survive seven
day exposure to an 85 degree C temperature at 85% relative
humidity, as well as seven day exposure to a 49 degree C
temperature at 100% relative humidity,
wherein the protective film is configured to be a
permanent protective film, and
wherein the mirror has a glass side visible reflectance of
at least 76%.
Appeal Br. 20–21 (Claims App.).
2. A coated article, comprising:
a substrate;
a multilayer thin film coating supported by the substrate,
the multilayer thin film coating comprising a metallic or
substantially metallic reflective layer comprising aluminum
sandwiched between inner and outer silicon-inclusive layers,
wherein said inner and outer silicon-inclusive layers each
comprise silicon nitride;
a layer comprising NiCr located between and directly
contacting said reflective layer comprising aluminum and said
outer silicon-inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride;
a non-paint, solid-applied permanent protective film
disposed directly over and contacting said outer silicon-
inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride, wherein the
protective film is configured to be a permanent protective film;
wherein the metallic or substantially metallic reflective
layer comprising aluminum is substantially thicker than each of
the inner silicon inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride, the
outer silicon inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride, and the
layer comprising NiCr, and wherein the outer silicon inclusive
layer comprising silicon nitride is thicker than the inner silicon
inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride; and
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

4
wherein the coated article is a mirror and has a glass side
visible reflectance of at least 70%.
Appeal Br. 21–22 (Claims App.).
An example of the claimed mirror is shown in application Figure 1b,
reproduced below.

Figure 1b depicted above is a schematic cross-sectional view of
a mirror according to Appellant’s invention.
The mirror shown in Fig. 1b includes glass substrate 100, aluminum-
based metallic layer 102 and NiCr layer 110 sandwiched between first and
second silicon nitride layers 104 and 106, respectively, and permanent
protective film 108 optionally provided as an outermost protective coating.
Spec. ¶¶ 19–20.
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

5
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–4, 7–10, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Medwick,3 Nitto,4 and Lemmer.5 Ans. 3.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the evidence in light of the Appellant’s and the
Examiner’s opposing positions, we determine that Appellant has not
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Because Appellant’s arguments focus on claims 1 and 2 (Appeal
Br. 11–19), we will do the same in our discussion below.
The Examiner finds that Medwick, for example in Medwick’s Fig. 1B
reproduced below, teaches a mirror with a multilayer coating similar to
claim 1’s and claim 2’s multilayer thin film coating. Final Act. 4–13 (citing
Medwick, code (57), ¶¶ 24, 25, 27–29, 31, 36, 37).

3 Medwick et al., US 2009/0233106 A1, published Sept. 17, 2009.
4 Nitto Denko, SPV 9300 Series.
5 Lemmer et al., US 2011/0212311 A1, published Sept. 1, 2011.
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

6

Medwick’s Fig. 1B depicts a solar mirror (3).
Figure 1B’s mirror includes glass substrate 12 (Medwick ¶¶ 24–25),
basecoat 102 of silicon nitride (id. ¶ 27) (corresponding to claim 1’s “first
silicon-inclusive layer” and claim 2’s “inner silicon-inclusive layer”),
primary reflective coating 22 including aluminum and having a thickness in
a range of 50 nm to 500 nm (500 angstroms to 5000 angstroms) (id. at
¶¶ 27–28) (corresponding to claim 1’s and 2’s “metallic or substantially
metallic reflective layer”), anti-corrosion coating 104 including, for
example, nickel and/or chromium with a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm (100
angstroms to 1000 angstroms) (id. ¶ 36) (corresponding to claim 1’s “layer
comprising Ni and/or Cr” and claim 2’s “layer comprising NiCr”), protective
coating 50 that includes silicon and top coat 40 that includes nitride (id.
¶¶ 29, 38) (together corresponding to claim 1’s “second silicon-inclusive
layer” and claim 2’s “outer silicon-inclusive layer”) in direct contact with
coating 104 because primer layer 106 is an optional layer (id. ¶ 37), and
encapsulation structure 24 (corresponding to a claim 1’s “non-paint
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

7
protective film” and claim 2’s “non-paint, solid-applied permanent
protective film”) optionally formed over and/or around at least a portion of
coated substrate 12 where the encapsulation structure is formed at least
partly by an encapsulating material 92, for example a polymeric
encapsulating material (id. ¶ 39).
The Examiner finds that Nitto discloses a surface protection material,
SPV 9310, having a peel strength of 320 cN/20 mm, and it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Nitto’s protection material
as Medwick’s encapsulation structure (24) “for the purpose of surface
protection and immediate use for further processing after lamination.” Final
Act. 6–7 (citing Nitto 2). In the Answer, the Examiner explains the
combination of Medwick and Nitto involves “simple substitution” of one
element, Medwick’s encapsulation structure 24, for another one, Nitto’s
protection tape SPV 9310, which is exactly the same protection tape used in
the examples in the instant application, and thus provides the same
protective and peel strength characteristics. Ans. 7–8.
The Examiner finds that Medwick does not teach a single “second” or
“outer” silicon-inclusive layer comprising nitride and relies on Lemmer to
account for this difference. Final Act. 6, 11; see also Ans. 8.
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have used a single silicon nitride layer, as
taught by Lemmer, in place of Medwick’s protective coating 50 (silicon) and
top coat 40 (nitride) because Lemmer teaches using silicon nitride layers (9a,
9b, 11) to sandwich conductive layers on a glass substrate to provide
protection as barrier layers and also help the optical characteristics of the
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

8
article. Final Act. 6, 11 (citing Lemmer ¶¶ 34–35); see Appeal Br. generally;
see also Reply Br. generally.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced Medwick’s
encapsulation structure 24 with Nitto’s tape SPV 9310. Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
Medwick teaches that encapsulation structure 24 could include any
material to protect the underlying coating materials of its reflective structure
from chemical and or mechanical attack. Medwick ¶ 50.
Nitto teaches that its SPV 9300 series tapes, such as SPV 9310, are
surface protection tapes suitable to protect rough and textured surfaces
during light mechanical processes, storage and transportation. Nitto 1, 2.
Nitto teaches that its SPV 9300 series tapes are ideal products to protect low
gloss surfaces, like rough plastics and laminates. Id.
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. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Given that Medwick’s encapsulation structure 24 and Nitto’s
SPV 9310 tape are both used for surface protection, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably expected that Nitto’s SPV 9310 tape
would have been suitable for use as the encapsulation material in Medwick’s
encapsulation structure 24 for protecting the underlying coating materials of
Medwick’s reflective structure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007) (assessing the obviousness of claims to a combination of prior art
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

9
elements by asking “whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”).
Appellant’s argument that Nitto’s SPV 9310 tape is not a “permanent”
protection film capable of surviving the temperature and humidity
requirements is not well taken. Appeal Br. 14–16. Although Nitto teaches
that its surface protection tapes “are not meant for permanent protection”
(Nitto 2), Appellant has not directed us to sufficient evidence or provided
adequate technical reasoning why Nitto’s SPV 9310 tape does not function
as a “permanent” protective encapsulation material as specified in the
Specification, i.e., a material capable of surviving the recited temperature
and humidity requirements (Spec. ¶ 29), when used in Medwick’s mirror.
Appellant argues that Medwick’s layer 106 and layer 40 are not a
silicon inclusive layer comprising silicon nitride and thus Medwick fails to
teach claim 1’s multilayer thin film coating. Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner’s rejection does not rely on Medwick’s
layer 106 as corresponding to claim 1’s second silicon-inclusive layer (or
claim 2’s “outer” silicon-inclusive layer). Final Act. 4, 11. In fact, the
Examiner finds that Medwick teaches that layer 106 is optional. Id. (citing
Medwick ¶ 37). Instead, the Examiner finds that Medwick teaches protective
layer 50 (silicon) and topcoat layer 40 (nitride) are formed above Medwick’s
layer Ni and/or chromium layer (anti-corrosion coating 104) and one of
ordinary skill in the art would have used a single silicon nitride layer, as
taught by Lemmer, in place of Medwick’s protective coating 50 (silicon) and
top coat 40 (nitride) because Lemmer teaches using silicon nitride layers (9a,
9b, 11) to sandwich conductive layers on a glass substrate to provide
Appeal 2020-006327
Application 13/338,644

10
protection as barrier layers and also help the optical characteristics of the
article. Final Act. 6 (citing Lemmer ¶¶ 34–35). Appellant does not
sufficiently address or identify reversible error in the Examiner’s reasoning
for modifying Medwick layered coating based on Lemmer’s teaching.
Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–4, 7–10, 25, and
26 over Medwick, Nitto, and Lemmer.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 7–10, 25, and 26 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–10,
25, 26
103(a) Medwick, Nitto,
Lemmer
1–4, 7–10,
25, 26

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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) (2019).

AFFIRMED