Quentin Gillard et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2021

2021001119 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 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.
14/130,787 01/03/2014 Quentin Gillard 426685US99PCT 1013
22850 7590 06/17/2021
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
FIGG, LAURA B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2021 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte QUENTIN GILLARD,
RENAUD HUBERT, BENOIT LECOMTE,
ROSTISLAV LOSOT, and NERIO LUCCA
____________

Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–10, and 12–23 of Application
14/130,787. Final Act. (January 24, 2020). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
A telephonic hearing in this appeal was held on June 8, 2021. Due to
technical difficulties, a transcript of that hearing will not be available.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies AGC Glass Europe as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
2
I. BACKGROUND
The ’787 Application describes laminated curved automotive glazing
assemblies and methods for manufacturing such assemblies. Spec. 1–5.
According to the Specification, car manufacturers increasingly are
demanding lighter window glass units. Id. at 1. Replacing solid glass with
thinner laminated glazing assemblies is one way to reduce weight. Id.
Laminated structures also offer increased acoustic comfort and protection
against break-in. Id.
The Specification states that the formation of low-thickness curved
laminated glazing units can be problematic. Id. The methods described in the
’787 Application are said to solve some of these problems. Id. at 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’787 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix.
1. A laminated curved automotive glazing assembly,
comprising:
a first glass sheet initially curved in this assembly,
a thermoplastic interlayer sheet, and
a second glass sheet with a thickness that is not greater than a
third of that of the first sheet,
wherein the second glass sheet does not have a curvature, or has
a curvature that is less than that of the first sheet, before its
assembly with the first glass sheet and the thermoplastic
interlayer sheet,
wherein in the assembly the second glass sheet has a surface
stress that is not more than 50 MPa, and
wherein the total thickness of the first glass sheet, thermoplastic
interlayer, and second glass sheet is not more than 2.8 mm.
Appeal Br. 21.
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
3
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3–5, 9, 10, 12, and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Agethen,2 Van
Laethem,3 and Rodloff.4 Final Act. 3.
2. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Agethen, Van Laethem, Rodloff, and Offermann.5
Final Act. 6.
3. Claims 6–8 and 19–236 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Agethen, Van Laethem,
Rodloff, and Yoshizawa.7 Final Act. 7.

2 US 4,643,944, issued February 17, 1987.
3 US 3,801,423, issued April 2, 1974.
4 GB 2,011,316 A, published July 11, 1979.
5 US 2012/0025559 A1, published February 2, 2012.
6 The Examiner’s summary statement of the rejection does not include claim
23. See Final Act. 7. The detailed statement of the rejection, however, does
address claim 23. Id. at 11. We assume that the omission of claim 23 from
the summary statement of the rejection is an inadvertent error.
7 US 6,806,983, issued July 11, 2000.
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
4
III. DISCUSSION
A. Rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 9, 10, 12, and 14–18 over the combination
of Agethen, Van Laethem, and Rodloff
Claim 1 is independent. The remaining claims subject to this ground
of rejection depend from claim 1. Because we reverse, we limit our
discussion to the rejection of independent claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Agethen describes or
suggests each limitation of claim 1 except for (a) the relative thicknesses of
the first and second glass sheets,8 (b) the compressive stress in the second
glass sheet being less than 50 MPa, and (c) the assembly process using a
curved first sheet and a second sheet that is either flat or less curved than the
first sheet. Final Act. 3–4.
The Examiner found that Van Laethem describes a curved window
assembly comprised of two sheets of glass, where the outer sheet is at least
1.25 times the thickness of the inner sheet. Id. at 4. The Examiner further

8 We do not decide whether the Examiner could rely upon only Agethen’s
description of its windshield unit as describing or suggesting the claimed
relative thicknesses of the first and second glass sheets. Agethen describes
its automotive glazing assembly as
generally compris[ing] an outer glass ply having a thickness of
about 1 to about 3 mm, and inter-layer of suitable energy
absorbing material such as poly(vinyl butyral) having a
thickness of about 0.5 to about 1 mm, an inner glass ply having
a thickness of about 0.5 to about 3 mm and adhered thereto the
pre-formed sheet of the present invention comprising a
thermoplastic film having a thickness of about 0.02 to about 0.6
mm and a thermoset film of anti-lacerative and self-healing
properties having a thickness of about 0.4 to about 0.6 mm.
Agethen 15:38–48. Agethen, therefore, describes a second glass sheet that is
between 1/6 and 3 times the thickness of the first glass sheet.
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
5
found that Agethen’s description of its preferred thicknesses of the inner
glass (0.5–3 mm), outer glass (1–3 mm), and thermoplastic interlayer (0.5–1
mm) encompasses an embodiment in which the inner glass sheet is 1/3 the
thickness of the outer glass sheet—thus applying Van Laethem’s description
of the relative thicknesses of the interlayer and sheets. The proposed
combination would have a combined thickness of the glass sheets and the
thermoplastic interlayer that is less than 2.8 mm as required by claim 1. Id.
at 4–5. The Examiner also found that Van Laethem describes the stresses
induced in the face of the second glass sheet as being 50 kg/mm² (490.3
MPa) or less, which overlaps with the range recited in claim 1 (50 MPa or
less). Id. at 4.
The Examiner found that Rodloff describes an assembly process in
which a curved first glass sheet is used to mold a flat second glass sheet into
a conforming curved shape while the two sheets are being joined by means
of a thermoplastic interlayer. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because, inter alia, the Examiner erred by finding that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Rodloff with Agethen and
Van Laethem to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–16.
We agree with Appellant.
The Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness relies upon a
combination of Agethen and Van Laethem in which the first glass sheet is at
least 1.5 mm thick, the second glass sheet is 0.5 mm thick, and the
thermoplastic interlayer also is 0.5 mm thick. Final Act. 4.
Rodloff, on the other hand, describes its process: “according to the
invention, there is provided a windscreen for motor vehicles or the like
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
6
comprising a normally cooled silicate glass outer pane 2–5 mm thick
connected via a plastics intermediate layer to a chemically toughened silicate
glass inner pane less than 1.5 mm thick.” Rodloff 1:68–74. Thus, to meet
claim 1’s thickness limitation, the inner glass pane in the Examiner’s
proposed combination would have a thickness less than or equal to 0.3 mm.
The Examiner’s proposed combination of references would have a
second glass sheet that is 60% or less of the minimum thickness described in
Agethen, i.e., 0.5 mm.9 The Examiner, however, does not explain why a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in using such a thin second glass sheet in the
proposed combination. Without such an explanation, we cannot affirm the
rejection of claim 1. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”).
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over the combination of Agethen, Van Laethem, and Rodloff. Thus,
we also reverse the rejection of claims 3–5, 9, 10, 12, and 14–18 over this
combination of references.

9 We note that Rodloff does not expressly state a minimum thickness for the
inner glass pane in its assembly. Although Rodloff’s claim 4 is directed to an
embodiment having an inner pane that is less than or equal to 0.6 mm thick,
the Examiner neither relies upon this description nor proposes using the
particular type of glass that Rodloff describes as preferable for use as the
inner pane.
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
7
B. Rejection of claim 13 over the combination of Agethen, Van Laethem,
Rodloff, and Offermann
Claim 13 depends from claim 1. Appellant argues that the rejection of
claim 13 should be reversed because it depends from an allowable claim and
because Offermann does not cure the defects in the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 19.
As discussed above, we have reversed the rejection of claim 1 over
the combination of Agethen, Van Laethem, and Rodloff. We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not found that Offermann cures the defects
in the combination of references relied upon to reject claim 1. Appeal Br. 19.
Thus, we also reverse the rejection of claim 13.
C. Rejection of claims 6–8 and 19–23 over the combination of Agethen,
Van Laethem, Rodloff, and Yoshizawa
We begin by dividing the claims subject to this ground of rejection
into three groups. First, we address claims 7 and 19, which depend from
independent claim 1. Second, we address independent claim 21 and claims
6, 8, 20, and 22, which depend from claim 21. Third, we address claim 23
which depends from claim 21 but is argued separately.
1. Claims 7 and 19
Claims 7 and 19 depend from claim 1. As discussed above, we have
reversed the rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Agethen, Van
Laethem, and Rodloff. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
found that Yoshizawa cures the defects in the combination of references
relied upon to reject claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. Thus, we also reverse the
rejection of claims 7 and 19.
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
8
2. Claims 6, 8, and 20–22
Claim 21 is independent. Claims 6, 8, 20, and 22 depend from claim
21. For ease of reference, we reproduce claim 21 below.
21. A laminated curved automotive glazing assembly,
consisting of:
a first glass sheet having a thickness of not more than 3.2
mm and curved before assembly with the second glass sheet
and the thermoplastic interlayer sheet to have a radius of
curvature that is not less than 1 m;
a thermoplastic interlayer sheet;
a second glass sheet that has been chemically toughened
and has a thickness between 0.2 mm and 0.8 mm, the thickness
being not greater than a third of the thickness of the first sheet,
optionally comprising a system of functional layers
covering one of the glass sheets, and
optionally including interlayer components comprising
functional elements,
wherein the second glass sheet does not have a curvature,
or has a curvature that is less than that of the first sheet, before
its assembly with the first glass sheet and the thermoplastic
interlayer sheet,
wherein in the assembly second glass sheet has a surface
stress that is not more than 50 MPa, and
wherein a thickness of the assembly of the two glass
sheets and the interlayer sheet is not more than 3.7 mm.
Appeal Br. 23–24 (emphasis added).
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner found that Agethen describes or
suggests each limitation of the claim except for (a) the claimed relationship
between the between the thickness of the first and second glass sheets,
(b) the first glass sheet being initially curved while the second glass sheet
has less of a curvature than the first glass sheet, (c) the surface compressive
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
9
stress of the inner glass ply being 50 MPa or less, and (d) the mathematical
relationship between the radii of curvature of the two glass sheets. Final
Act. 8.
The Examiner found that Van Laethem describes a curved window
assembly with a first and second chemically toughened class sheets where
the outer sheet has a larger thickness than the inner sheet by at least 1.25
times. Id. at 9. The Examiner also found that Van Laethem describes the
stresses induced in the face of the second glass sheet as being 50 kg/mm²
(490.3 MPa) or less, which overlaps with the range recited in claim 1 (50
MPa or less). Id.
The Examiner found that Rodloff describes the recited assembly
process in which the first glass sheet is initially curved and used as a mold to
shape the second glass sheet into a conforming curve. Id. at 10.
The Examiner found that Yoshizawa describes a curved limited glass
assembly with a first glass layer and a second glass layer. Id. The Examiner
further found that Yoshizawa describes the radius of curvature of the first
glass sheet as smaller than the second glass sheet. Id. The Examiner found
that Yoshizawa’s first glass sheet has a radius of curvature of 1300 mm. Id.
at 10–11.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 21 should be reversed
because the Examiner has erred by finding that the combination of Agethen,
Van Laethem, and Rodloff describes or suggests a glazing assembly that
meets the recited thickness limitation of less than 3.7 mm. Appeal Br. 12–
16. Appellant further argues that Yoshizawa teaches away from the proposed
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
10
combination and is incompatible with Rodloff’s teachings. Id. at 18. We
address these arguments sequentially.10
First, we address Appellant’s contention that the rejection of claim 21
should be reversed for the same reasons we reversed the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 21 recites a maximum combined thickness of the first glass
sheet, second glass sheet, and thermoplastic interlayer is 3.7 mm. This is
thicker than that recited in claim 1. If one assumes that the outer layer in the
Examiner’s proposed combination is 2.0 mm—the thinnest described by
Rodloff—and the thermoplastic interlayer is 0.5 mm—the lower end of the
range described in Agethen—the inner layer of glass could be as much as
0.67 mm thick and still meet claim 21’s requirement that the second glass

10 During the hearing, Appellant argued that Agethen is not a proper base
reference for the rejection of claim 21. Appellant argued that the use of the
transitional phrase “consisting of” meant that claim 21’s window assembly
could include only a first glass sheet, a second glass sheet, and a
thermoplastic interlayer.
This argument is not persuasive because claim 21 specifically allows
for optional inclusion of a system of functional layers covering one of the
glass sheets. This limitation allows for inclusion of Agethen’s polyurethane
layers. See also Final Act. 13 (“Applicant argues . . . that as claim 21 has
been amended to be ‘consisting of’ language, the additional layers of
Agethen cannot be present. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes
that claim 21 was also amended to allow for the presence of ‘functional
layers’, and therefore, Agethen’s additional layer is not prohibited by the
closed preamble.”).
Moreover, this argument is untimely with respect to this appeal
because it was not in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not
first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted,
the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not
been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”).
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
11
sheet be no more than one third the thickness of the first glass sheet. Thus,
the second glass sheet falls within the range of thicknesses described in
Agethen (0.5 mm–3.0 mm). The resulting assembly would have a total
thickness of 2.0+0.5+0.67 = 3.17 mm. This is less than the maximum of 3.7
mm recited in claim 21.
Thus, the reasoning that compelled us to reverse the rejection of claim
1 does not require reversal of the rejection of claim 21.
Second, Appellant argues that we should reverse the rejection of claim
21 because Yoshizawa teaches away from the proposed combination of
references and is incompatible with Rodloff. Appeal Br. 18. In particular,
Appellant argues that Yoshizawa teaches away from having a very thin inner
glass layer in the laminated window assembly. Id. (citing Yoshizawa 3:15–
17 (“On the other hand, if the glass thickness is below 1.5 mm, a sufficient
strength cannot be ensured when the laminated glass is used as a window
member.”)).
This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner argues that
Yoshizawa’s statements regarding the minimum thickness of the inner glass
layer of the laminated window assembly is a description of a preferred
embodiment. Answer 18.
We have considered all of the references relied upon in this rejection.
Although the Examiner has not explained why a person having ordinary skill
in the art would ignore Yoshizawa’s description of the preferred minimum
thickness of the inner glass layer, the other references relied upon in the
rejection also describe laminated window assemblies and have the inner
glass sheets with thicknesses less than 1.5 mm. As the Federal Circuit has
explained, “[w]hen prior art contains apparently conflicting references, the
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
12
Board must weigh each reference for its power to suggest solutions to an
artisan of ordinary skill” and, in so doing, “consider the degree to which one
reference might accurately discredit another.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The teachings of a reference that arguably teaches
away from a claimed feature must be weighed alongside the teachings of a
cited reference that teaches the propriety of employing that feature. Para-
Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed.
Cir. 1995). After consideration of the complete disclosure of each of the
references, we determine that Yoshizawa’s statements regarding the
thickness of the inner sheet of glass would not have dissuaded a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Agethen, Van Laethem, Rodloff, and
Yoshizawa in the manner proposed by the Examiner in the rejection of claim
21. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[O]bviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and there
is no rule that a single reference that teaches away will mandate a finding of
nonobviousness.”).
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claim 21.
We, therefore, also affirm the rejection of claims 6, 8, 20, and 22.
3. Claim 23
For ease of reference, we reproduce claim 23 below.
23. The glazing according to claim 21, wherein the first glass
sheet has a radius of curvature R1 and the second glass sheet is
curved and has an initial radius of curvature R2, and the ratio of
the radii of curvature of the second glass sheet in relation to that
of the first glass sheet before assembly is such that that
R2/R1>2.
Appeal Br. 24.
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
13
Appellant separately argues for reversal of the rejection of claim 23.
Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not made a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 23.11
This argument is not persuasive.
In the Final Action, the Examiner found that
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the ratio of
curvature it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to adjust the curvature of the glass (Rodloff page 1, lines
4-11) through routine experimentation in order to match the
motor vehicle (automobile) shape as necessary. Further, it
would be expected that the optimum range would be expected
to overlap as both the glass of Agethen in view of Van Laethem
in further view of Rodloff in further view of Yoshizawa and the
glass claimed are being used as vehicle windscreens, see MPEP
2144.05.
Final Act. 11.
Appellant does not present any argument that these findings are
erroneous. Appeal Br. 17–19. We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claim 23.

11 Appellant also challenges the Final Action’s citation of page 1, lines 4–11
of Rodloff. Appeal Br. 17 (“The Office Action also refers to page 1, lines 4-
11 of Rodloff. However, this portion of Rodloff does not discuss curvature
of the glass sheets at all and in fact highlights again that the outer glass pane
should be at least 2 mm thick.”). In the Answer, the Examiner explains that
that portion of Rodloff was cited merely to illustrate that Rodloff describes
fabrication of a windscreen. Answer 18. According to the Examiner, “[t]he
citation used in the rejection to teach bending the thicker pane and then
using it as a mold for a previously unbent pane was page 1, line 127 to page
2, line 4.” Id.
Appeal 2021-001119
Application 14/130,787
14
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 9, 10,
12, 14–18 103(a)
Agethen, Van Laethem,
Rodloff
1, 3–5, 9,
10, 12,
14–18
13 103(a) Agethen, Van Laethem, Rodloff, Offermann 13
6–8, 19–23 103(a) Agethen, Van Laethem, Rodloff, Yoshizawa
6, 8, 20–
23 7, 19
Overall
Outcome
6, 8, 20–
23
1, 3– 5, 7,
9, 10, 12–
19
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 IN PART